It took the Standard a very long time to settle on a price that reflects what it is actuallly worth. It is read in preference to facing the armpit of the passenger squeezed in next to you.
Arf - here's an interesting factoid: Michael Foot was the Evening Standard editor in 1942.
It took the Standard a very long time to settle on a price that reflects what it is actuallly worth. It is read in preference to facing the armpit of the passenger squeezed in next to you.
Analogous to voting Tory as a preference for facing the armpit that is Corbynistic Labour I wonder?
Just working those metaphor muscles, its a long campaign and twisting everything to the election is not for the faint hearted.
When I think of The Standard, what springs to mind is the word "Ewer" which seems to be often an answer on the back page crossword.
I was stuck on a (ram) packed Jubilee Line tube in the rush hour once between Southwark & London Bridge... after about 10 mins I thought I'd do the crossword, telling myself by the time I finished it I would be pulling into Upminster... 45 mins later, the crossword was finished.. and we hadn't moved!
It's interesting that both Labour and the LDs now have record or close to record memberships (assuming a certain level of drop off for Labour since the Corbynsurge), and yet could both end up doing terribly in the election. Labour we expect them to do badly, and it's a question of if he will better Foot's percentage or the Tory low points of the late 90s and early 2000s, while with the LDs people are more varied, but expecting the possibility of some losses with the balance of some gains, and a result which while technically good 2 years after a drubbing - say 15-20 as a really good night - it is historically still a terrible result, if not to be sniffed at as it will show significant recovery if they manage it.
If a political party suddenly attracts a lot of new members there's probably something wrong both with the party and the new members.
Mr. T, it's a rare advantage for serial-selling (got an initial run coming out this month), because you can make the first part free, then have the others at a 'legitimately' low price.
There's also a natural middling effect. Companies take advantage of things like that with kettles. You have the Swanky kettle, for people with money to fritter away, for maybe twice the normal price. Then you have an Average kettle, and below that an Economy kettle. The poor will go Economy, but everybody else will go for the Average, even though there might well be sod all functional difference.
People don't like feeling like they're shopping poor. I remember when Aldi, Lidle and the now absent Netto were shops of mockery (if you brought in a Netto bag to school you'd be teased mercilessly). The shift to that being ok is one of the more interesting consumer trends in recent years.
The steelworks, which was on the brink of closure two years ago, has had a new lease of life as a result of the weaker pound. Overall it is an extremely Brexitty town. If the Tories don't win it they'll be falling well short of the large majority most are expecting.
Mr. T, that's also a catch-22 for self-publishing.
Price something low, people think it's worth less. Price it higher and it can look extortionate because there's a sea of free and 99p e-books.
Mind you, some publishers do take the piss, having e-book prices identical or just below paperback costs.
Exactly. There's a whole science devoted to discovering the right price point for any product.
Some things sell better the higher the price, as that makes them seem rarer and more exclusive (though you can only go so far).
Giving it away, when you used to charge for it, is literally telling the consumer - this is now worthless. Not great for a newspaper.
And yet we (the public) lap free stuff up online and are very reticent about paying for content. That's probably partly down to an easily verifiable quality of some websites, and it's partly down to culture - the web has always had a large free element whereas print media has been dominated by pay-per-unit (though the electronic media hasn't).
But people are very good at compartmentalising and while it might be inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy to go out of their way to avoid paying in one area while eschewing freebies in another related one, nonetheless, I the price is undoubtedly a big part in how the quality of a newspaper is perceived.
Mr. T, that's also a catch-22 for self-publishing.
Price something low, people think it's worth less. Price it higher and it can look extortionate because there's a sea of free and 99p e-books.
Mind you, some publishers do take the piss, having e-book prices identical or just below paperback costs.
Exactly. There's a whole science devoted to discovering the right price point for any product.
Some things sell better the higher the price, as that makes them seem rarer and more exclusive (though you can only go so far).
Giving it away, when you used to charge for it, is literally telling the consumer - this is now worthless. Not great for a newspaper.
But all newspapers - except The Times - are given away for free online, where the vast majority of people now read them. And free copies on planes and in hotel lobbies etc. Does that mean all newspapers are equally worthless?
- that the UK will have to bear costs of EU agencies relocating out of UK - that the UK will have to settle the accounts for commitments - BUT that the UK will have no right to any EU assets
They're living in cloud bloody cuckoo land, aren't they....
They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.
But thats 312 deffo Tories If the too close to calls split 50/50 then it gives the Tories a very nice maj
Yeah, exactly. Although in not all the 125 seats are Con a contender, it includes some NI seats for a start. Even if they only get a quarter of them that puts them on 343, maj 36.
My thoughts exactly .... I'm actually expecting the Tories to achieve a majority of between 50-75 seats as a result of them securing somewhere close to 35%-40% of the UK vote which would land my 12.5 (11.35) bet with BetfairEx. Come on you Blues!
There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.
Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.
From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....
The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.
The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.
Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k
I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular
They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.
But thats 312 deffo Tories If the too close to calls split 50/50 then it gives the Tories a very nice maj
Yeah, exactly. Although in not all the 125 seats are Con a contender, it includes some NI seats for a start. Even if they only get a quarter of them that puts them on 343, maj 36.
My thoughts exactly .... I'm actually expecting the Tories to achieve a majority of between 50-75 seats as a result of them securing somewhere close to 35%-40% of the UK vote which would land my 12.5 (11.35) bet with BetfairEx. Come on you Blues!
I think that, maybe a bit more, was basically where a lot of people were at the time of the GE announcement, but the sudden surge for Tories has understably made people excited at a grander prospect, particularly with promising poll numbers in Scotland and Wales. With Labour apparently stubbornly holding on to the late 20s early 30s, and LDs still moribund, that original estimate may well remain the case, and no bad thing for the Tories, but still a bit down on the dreams at one point.
The Guardian is unique amongst broadsheets in still being entirely free online, but they are losing zillions, and they will likely be forced to introduce some kind of paywall soon.
Mr. T, that's also a catch-22 for self-publishing.
Price something low, people think it's worth less. Price it higher and it can look extortionate because there's a sea of free and 99p e-books.
Mind you, some publishers do take the piss, having e-book prices identical or just below paperback costs.
Exactly. There's a whole science devoted to discovering the right price point for any product.
Some things sell better the higher the price, as that makes them seem rarer and more exclusive (though you can only go so far).
Giving it away, when you used to charge for it, is literally telling the consumer - this is now worthless. Not great for a newspaper.
But all newspapers - except The Times - are given away for free online, where the vast majority of people now read them. And free copies on planes and in hotel lobbies etc. Does that mean all newspapers are equally worthless?
Simply not true. Most *broadsheets* now have some kind of paywall - the Telegraph, the FT, the Economist, the Spec, the Times, the equivalent Sundays. Same goes for important papers abroad - the NYT etc
The Guardian is unique amongst broadsheets in still being entirely free online, but they are losing zillions, and they will likely be forced to introduce some kind of paywall soon.
What, you mean "Since you're here we've got a small favour to ask" isn't raking in the cash for them?
Rubbish! I live in London and I can tell you that this paper's heyday was in the 1980s the business pages were well respected and an important source of information. Perhaps because of the internet this is no longer the case and the city pages these days have hardly any company or market news, mainly columns written by youthful writers (teenage scribblers) whinging about Brexit. The paper has been going downhill for many years now and nobody would pay for it, so it now has to be given away free. it's an appropriate retirement home for washed up George Osborne.
Mr. T, that's also a catch-22 for self-publishing.
Price something low, people think it's worth less. Price it higher and it can look extortionate because there's a sea of free and 99p e-books.
Mind you, some publishers do take the piss, having e-book prices identical or just below paperback costs.
Exactly. There's a whole science devoted to discovering the right price point for any product.
Some things sell better the higher the price, as that makes them seem rarer and more exclusive (though you can only go so far).
Giving it away, when you used to charge for it, is literally telling the consumer - this is now worthless. Not great for a newspaper.
But all newspapers - except The Times - are given away for free online, where the vast majority of people now read them. And free copies on planes and in hotel lobbies etc. Does that mean all newspapers are equally worthless?
Simply not true. Most *broadsheets* now have some kind of paywall - the Telegraph, the FT, the Economist, the Spec, the Times, the equivalent Sundays. Same goes for important papers abroad - the NYT etc
The Guardian is unique amongst broadsheets in still being entirely free online, but they are losing zillions, and they will likely be forced to introduce some kind of paywall soon.
The Mail and The Sun do not, and they are arguably the two most influential papers in the land.
I remember you've been making the same prediction about The Guardian for donkeys years yet they've clung on with no sign yet of initiating a paywall - I wouldn't be so confident they can't hold out for another 5 or 10 years.
- that the UK will have to bear costs of EU agencies relocating out of UK - that the UK will have to settle the accounts for commitments - BUT that the UK will have no right to any EU assets
They're living in cloud bloody cuckoo land, aren't they....
No - they are trying to set the rules of negotiation how they want them. At the moment, as I mentioned earlier, we are defining the rules of the game 'Brexit', not playing them.
- that the UK will have to bear costs of EU agencies relocating out of UK - that the UK will have to settle the accounts for commitments - BUT that the UK will have no right to any EU assets
They're living in cloud bloody cuckoo land, aren't they....
They're giving us a case study ahead of Scottish independence.
Mr. T, that's also a catch-22 for self-publishing.
Price something low, people think it's worth less. Price it higher and it can look extortionate because there's a sea of free and 99p e-books.
Mind you, some publishers do take the piss, having e-book prices identical or just below paperback costs.
Exactly. There's a whole science devoted to discovering the right price point for any product.
Some things sell better the higher the price, as that makes them seem rarer and more exclusive (though you can only go so far).
Giving it away, when you used to charge for it, is literally telling the consumer - this is now worthless. Not great for a newspaper.
But all newspapers - except The Times - are given away for free online, where the vast majority of people now read them. And free copies on planes and in hotel lobbies etc. Does that mean all newspapers are equally worthless?
Simply not true. Most *broadsheets* now have some kind of paywall - the Telegraph, the FT, the Economist, the Spec, the Times, the equivalent Sundays. Same goes for important papers abroad - the NYT etc
The Guardian is unique amongst broadsheets in still being entirely free online, but they are losing zillions, and they will likely be forced to introduce some kind of paywall soon.
What, you mean "Since you're here we've got a small favour to ask" isn't raking in the cash for them?
For less than the price of a caramel frappuccino with nutmeg powder...
The London Evening Standard used to be a tremendous newspaper with great writers and considerable style and panache. ...
I always thought that the Evening News was the superior paper and was jolly disappointed when it went under. Each to their own I suppose.
Blimey .... you're going back there a bit HurstLlama. I remember the Evening News dying on its feet, before it was subsumed into the Standard. IIRC, the Evening News was owned by Associated Newspapers (i.e.the Daily Mail Group) and the Standard by their bitter enemies at the Express Group and they owned the merged title 50%:50%, although Associated subsequently acquired outright ownership before eventually selling it for a song.
Rubbish! I live in London and I can tell you that this paper's heyday was in the 1980s the business pages were well respected and an important source of information. Perhaps because of the internet this is no longer the case and the city pages these days have hardly any company or market news, mainly columns written by youthful writers (teenage scribblers) whinging about Brexit. The paper has been going downhill for many years now and nobody would pay for it, so it now has to be given away free. it's an appropriate retirement home for washed up George Osborne.
Whether you like it or not, a large part of London is whinging about Brexit so it's hardly a surprise that they are playing to their readership on that. And London commuters are younger than average so a paper made up entirely of crusty Brexiteer columnists would hardly be a good idea.
There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.
Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.
From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....
The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.
The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.
Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k
I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular
On topic ... this is, quite correctly, a London story, as the purpose of the changes to education funding is to take money away from pampered inner London and spend it on neglected outer Norfolk (inter alia). Inner Londoners may complain bitterly about this, to which the obvious repost is, "serves you right for voting Labour".
The steelworks, which was on the brink of closure two years ago, has had a new lease of life as a result of the weaker pound. Overall it is an extremely Brexitty town. If the Tories don't win it they'll be falling well short of the large majority most are expecting.
The town is changing, away from steel. It has undergone lot of new build housing and developed a lot of distribution centres when I went up there last year (twitching the Western Purple Swamphen). I reckon it could well go Tory this time.
So the EU have unilaterally decided: - that the UK will have to bear costs of EU agencies relocating out of UK - that the UK will have to settle the accounts for commitments - BUT that the UK will have no right to any EU assets They're living in cloud bloody cuckoo land, aren't they....
No, the person in Cloud Cuckoo Land is your Mrs May. It is she who has put the country in such a weak bargaining position. If you say "I want the agreement to be 100% on my terms, or there is no agreement" and we just walk away from everything, then you are on to a loser.
If the other side replies "It is either on these terms of ours, or you can just walk away", then Mrs May and her team either accept, or walk away. As things stand, she will have to walk away.
This will then be praised in the media as being "strong and stable", as the economy crashes round us.
So the EU have unilaterally decided: - that the UK will have to bear costs of EU agencies relocating out of UK - that the UK will have to settle the accounts for commitments - BUT that the UK will have no right to any EU assets They're living in cloud bloody cuckoo land, aren't they....
No, the person in Cloud Cuckoo Land is your Mrs May. It is she who has put the country in such a weak bargaining position. If you say "I want the agreement to be 100% on my terms, or there is no agreement" and we just walk away from everything, then you are on to a loser.
If the other side replies "It is either on these terms of ours, or you can just walk away", then Mrs May and her team either accept, or walk away. As things stand, she will have to walk away.
This will then be praised in the media as being "strong and stable", as the economy crashes round us.
They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.
They appear to be Canadian. Did the 2001 and 2010 UK GEs with 94% and 89% accuracy by constituency.
What does '89% accuracy' mean? That they got 11% wrong? That's over 70 seats - or the difference between a knife-edge majority and a landslide!!
Yup, that's how they rate themselves. In 2001 they got 619 out of 659 correct and in 2010 579/650.
That isn't very impressive at all given that it is the marginals that we are most curious about which is what they would have got wrong. Anyone predicting by constituency in 2010 using even a simple calculator should have been able to get at least 500 right off the bat.
Mr. T, that's also a catch-22 for self-publishing.
Price something low, people think it's worth less. Price it higher and it can look extortionate because there's a sea of free and 99p e-books.
Mind you, some publishers do take the piss, having e-book prices identical or just below paperback costs.
Exactly. There's a whole science devoted to discovering the right price point for any product.
Some things sell better the higher the price, as that makes them seem rarer and more exclusive (though you can only go so far).
Giving it away, when you used to charge for it, is literally telling the consumer - this is now worthless. Not great for a newspaper.
But all newspapers - except The Times - are given away for free online, where the vast majority of people now read them. And free copies on planes and in hotel lobbies etc. Does that mean all newspapers are equally worthless?
Simply not true. Most *broadsheets* now have some kind of paywall - the Telegraph, the FT, the Economist, the Spec, the Times, the equivalent Sundays. Same goes for important papers abroad - the NYT etc
The Guardian is unique amongst broadsheets in still being entirely free online, but they are losing zillions, and they will likely be forced to introduce some kind of paywall soon.
The Mail and The Sun do not, and they are arguably the two most influential papers in the land.
I remember you've been making the same prediction about The Guardian for donkeys years yet they've clung on with no sign yet of initiating a paywall - I wouldn't be so confident they can't hold out for another 5 or 10 years.
Actually, the opposite is true. When the Times first went behind a paywall, I said 1. it might well work, and 2. almost all papers would have to copy them, in some way, in time
I was roundly pooh-poohed on here, "who would ever pay for news now" etc etc
I was entirely right. The Times has made a success of it, and nearly all the broadsheets have done something similar.
The Guardian is an interesting exception. But they are bleeding money, horribly. I give it 2-3 years max before they do something drastic - go entirely online, move to Manchester, build a paywall, etc
The Grauniad was originally the "Manchester Guardian".
Some fascinating horrors. France and Germany have decided we get zero EU assets. Nada. We will still have to subsidise French farmers AFTER Brexit. We gotta pay for bridges and railways in the EU far into the 2020s. And so forth.
This is a bill designed to be rejected, if it appears in this fashion. Even with a 900 seat majority, TMay could not get that past her party, or the country.
The Evening Standard was extremely pro-Remain even before Ozzy turned up. Now I suspect he feels he's amongst friends, being able to remind his readership how naive and witless all Leave voters are.
The London Evening Standard used to be a tremendous newspaper with great writers and considerable style and panache. ...
I always thought that the Evening News was the superior paper and was jolly disappointed when it went under. Each to their own I suppose.
Blimey .... you're going back there a bit HurstLlama. I remember the Evening News dying on its feet, before it was subsumed into the Standard. IIRC, the Evening News was owned by Associated Newspapers (i.e.the Daily Mail Group) and the Standard by their bitter enemies at the Express Group and they owned the merged title 50%:50%, although Associated subsequently acquired outright ownership before eventually selling it for a song.
When I lived in London in the late 60s - 70s the Evening Standard always had more pages than the Evening News (both were broadsheets).
It's still unclear whether the broadcasters of this evening's Le Pen-Macron debate will be able to show a candidate's reaction while the other is speaking. Banned in the interround TV debate since 1981, reaction clips were allowed this year before the first round. They will favour the better fighter, so presumably Le Pen wants them. So does the broadcaster. Word is that negotiations are still ongoing. The contestants won't be behind lecterns because Le Pen said it would be tiring to stand for 2-3 hours wearing heels.
At the weigh-in, Macron said he wasn't going to employ invective. "I am not going to use clichés or insults. I’ll use hand-to-hand fighting to demonstrate that her ideas represent false solutions." I don't yet know the order of the topics, so can't predict the number of the round in which he'll first go down. But the way Macron is mixing violent metaphor with preppy talk makes him look as though he's fighting in the wrong weight - and perhaps suggests he's crapping himself. This will be bloody.
Some fascinating horrors. France and Germany have decided we get zero EU assets. Nada. We will still have to subsidise French farmers AFTER Brexit. We gotta pay for bridges and railways in the EU far into the 2020s. And so forth.
This is a bill designed to be rejected, if it appears in this fashion. Even with a 900 seat majority, TMay could not get that past her party, or the country.
I just wonder - maybe the EU hasn't got a fucking clue how to handle Brexit? Utterly lost in how to juggle getting in cash to keep offering sweeteners to its members and making it so horrible for others to have the temerity to leave - whilst not destroying export markets to the UK.
If you think the UK has a problem....at least we can just say "nah....on yer bike. WTO it is. We'll survive." Can the EU REALLY take that as an acceptable outcome?
If you think the UK has a problem....at least we can just say "nah....on yer bike. WTO it is. We'll survive." Can the EU REALLY take that as an acceptable outcome?
No - without Britain they'd be completely cut off and without a paddle. They'd try for a while to pass crepes and sauerkraut around the table as if they were port. Then they'd collapse, bawling their little foreign eyes out.
Some fascinating horrors. France and Germany have decided we get zero EU assets. Nada. We will still have to subsidise French farmers AFTER Brexit. We gotta pay for bridges and railways in the EU far into the 2020s. And so forth.
This is a bill designed to be rejected, if it appears in this fashion. Even with a 900 seat majority, TMay could not get that past her party, or the country.
As Juncker might say: "If you stay you pay, if you leave you contribute".
In reality, the only acceptable numbers to the UK electorate will be a steadily decreasing EU bill down to a much smaller number.
So the EU have unilaterally decided: - that the UK will have to bear costs of EU agencies relocating out of UK - that the UK will have to settle the accounts for commitments - BUT that the UK will have no right to any EU assets They're living in cloud bloody cuckoo land, aren't they....
No, the person in Cloud Cuckoo Land is your Mrs May. It is she who has put the country in such a weak bargaining position. If you say "I want the agreement to be 100% on my terms, or there is no agreement" and we just walk away from everything, then you are on to a loser.
If the other side replies "It is either on these terms of ours, or you can just walk away", then Mrs May and her team either accept, or walk away. As things stand, she will have to walk away.
This will then be praised in the media as being "strong and stable", as the economy crashes round us.
This is the weakest government I have ever known.
More wishful thinking from the Eurofanatics. It really is quite sad to see.
The London Evening Standard used to be a tremendous newspaper with great writers and considerable style and panache. ...
I always thought that the Evening News was the superior paper and was jolly disappointed when it went under. Each to their own I suppose.
Blimey .... you're going back there a bit HurstLlama. I remember the Evening News dying on its feet, before it was subsumed into the Standard. IIRC, the Evening News was owned by Associated Newspapers (i.e.the Daily Mail Group) and the Standard by their bitter enemies at the Express Group and they owned the merged title 50%:50%, although Associated subsequently acquired outright ownership before eventually selling it for a song.
Yes, I am going a long way back, Mr. Putney. I remember the evening newspaper seller at the corner of Chancery Lane and Holborn, "News an' Standar'", and the vans whizzing past chucking out a bundle of the latest editions without ever quite stopping (from memory the Evening News put out seven editions a day).
The Evening News provided me with enough reading to last the Journey to East Putney station and there was a good crossword to fallback on in the event of a slow news day. I cannot remember what it used to cost, maybe sixpence.
Once they get wireless working on the underground they will not even be able to give away the Standard.
Some fascinating horrors. France and Germany have decided we get zero EU assets. Nada. We will still have to subsidise French farmers AFTER Brexit. We gotta pay for bridges and railways in the EU far into the 2020s. And so forth.
This is a bill designed to be rejected, if it appears in this fashion. Even with a 900 seat majority, TMay could not get that past her party, or the country.
Opening bids are designed to be rejected; its what follows that counts.
Granted, the EU seem to come up this in a way to maximise resentment, which is not entirely rational you expect a genuine negotiation. Remember also that there are a number of players with differing agendas on the EU side of the table; on our side, there will be only one (which is of course the point of the current election, however 'irrelevant' some would say it is).
How can you have been entirely right when the two most popular papers - The Mail and The Sun - remain without a paywall and there's little indication that they'll adopt one (The Sun abandoned theirs IIRC). Their business model of clickbait and trashy celeb news seems to work OK for them. And except the Times and FT, the paywalls (Telegraph, Spectator etc) tend to allow a certain number of free articles. The Times may have made it a success but it still seems far from clear that this is a route the industry will be able move further down and remain viable in the long term.
If you think the UK has a problem....at least we can just say "nah....on yer bike. WTO it is. We'll survive." Can the EU REALLY take that as an acceptable outcome?
No - without Britain they'd be completely cut off and without a paddle. They'd try for a while to pass crepes and sauerkraut around the table as if they were port. Then they'd collapse, bawling their little foreign eyes out.
What is the EU's track record on negotiating? They are used to just saying "this is how it will be, Greece" or whoever. They didn't "negotiate" over the Constitution when it got rejected - just changed the name and ploughed on. Now they have no choice but to negotiate - and to co-ordinate 27 opinions. Against Theresa May's poker face. It's gonna be a hoot.....
I just wonder - maybe the EU hasn't got a fucking clue how to handle Brexit? Utterly lost in how to juggle getting in cash to keep offering sweeteners to its members and making it so horrible for others to have the temerity to leave - whilst not destroying export markets to the UK.
I think that is highly likely, further complicated by the fact that are 27 different countries each with their own priorities with opposition parties within each ountry trying to score political points, plus the Eurocrats with their priority for the sacredness of The Project, plus the EU parliament trying to grandstand in the background.
I'm not sure that this is exactly good news, however. It's the kind of chaotic situation some of us warned about before the referendum.
Mr. Eagles, we'll see how well she ends up doing with the EU (unless we have the horror of PM Corbyn). However, worth noting that Cameron was bloody awful, Brown was a reneging weasel, and Blair threw away half the rebate for nothing.
They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.
They appear to be Canadian. Did the 2001 and 2010 UK GEs with 94% and 89% accuracy by constituency.
What does '89% accuracy' mean? That they got 11% wrong? That's over 70 seats - or the difference between a knife-edge majority and a landslide!!
Yup, that's how they rate themselves. In 2001 they got 619 out of 659 correct and in 2010 579/650.
That isn't very impressive at all given that it is the marginals that we are most curious about which is what they would have got wrong. Anyone predicting by constituency in 2010 using even a simple calculator should have been able to get at least 500 right off the bat.
If not 600. A clue ... look on bookmakers' sites for numbers like 1.01, 1.02, 1.05 and 1.10.
I think Gower was the only seat with long-ish odds (8) and a surprise result in 2015. 2010 was possibly more 'boring'.
So, in 2010 they could potentially get about 600 results right by believing the betting odds to be roughly right and only 50 seats might need significant skill, including seats which appear marginal but often stay Labour like Hampstead.
The Tories will finish closer to 45 than 35 - great voter demographics and the EU doing their campaigning for them;
Labour will finish closer to 25 than 35 - comedy casting leadership team and awful voter demographics;
The SNP will finish closer to 40 than 50 in Scotland - they look to be running out of steam and to some extent share the loser demographic that Labour usually has (I am wondering increasingly about them failing to hit 40);
The Lib Dems will make very few gains -little to no sign of any life beyond London and the South;
Turnout will be closer to 60 than 70. Who exactly are the left-leaners supposed to vote for?
If you think the UK has a problem....at least we can just say "nah....on yer bike. WTO it is. We'll survive." Can the EU REALLY take that as an acceptable outcome?
No - without Britain they'd be completely cut off and without a paddle. They'd try for a while to pass crepes and sauerkraut around the table as if they were port. Then they'd collapse, bawling their little foreign eyes out.
What is the EU's track record on negotiating? They are used to just saying "this is how it will be, Greece" or whoever. They didn't "negotiate" over the Constitution when it got rejected - just changed the name and ploughed on. Now they have no choice but to negotiate - and to co-ordinate 27 opinions
Greece and the EU constitution are internal EU affairs. A better comparison would be with EU negotiations with China or the US, except that Britain's GDP is about a fifth of rEU's. I will grant you that in the Middle East the EU's negotiators have achieved eff-all.
If you think the UK has a problem....at least we can just say "nah....on yer bike. WTO it is. We'll survive." Can the EU REALLY take that as an acceptable outcome?
No - without Britain they'd be completely cut off and without a paddle. They'd try for a while to pass crepes and sauerkraut around the table as if they were port. Then they'd collapse, bawling their little foreign eyes out.
What is the EU's track record on negotiating? They are used to just saying "this is how it will be, Greece" or whoever. They didn't "negotiate" over the Constitution when it got rejected - just changed the name and ploughed on. Now they have no choice but to negotiate - and to co-ordinate 27 opinions. Against Theresa May's poker face. It's gonna be a hoot.....
Yep, it will be utterly hilarious for wealthy Brexiteers who have nothing to lose from a rock-hard Brexit.
Some fascinating horrors. France and Germany have decided we get zero EU assets. Nada. We will still have to subsidise French farmers AFTER Brexit. We gotta pay for bridges and railways in the EU far into the 2020s. And so forth.
This is a bill designed to be rejected, if it appears in this fashion. Even with a 900 seat majority, TMay could not get that past her party, or the country.
As Juncker might say: "If you stay you pay, if you leave you contribute".
In reality, the only acceptable numbers to the UK electorate will be a steadily decreasing EU bill down to a much smaller number.
It seems quite likely, to me, that the UK electorate would find it acceptable if some of the money we end up paying is in direct payments to the Republic of Ireland, in order to ease the transition.
So anyone know the answer to the important question: who's the girl with famous mum making her fashion debut?
Mr. Jessup, the question that should be occupying most of your time is, "What am I doing early evening on 27th of this month?" If the answer is not drinking beer in the Baron of Beef at about 18:00 then please contact me HurstLlama dot Gmail dot Com.
Following on from that May speech, listening to the EU committee also me realise just how damaging it is that the UK is leaving the union. The EU trade committees were reporting African nations unwilling to conclude trade talks unless the Brexit situation was cleared up - i.e. the UK fufure relationship was clear. Also, there's a huge gap in funding for many of these EU sweetheart projects..
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges · 5m5 minutes ago You know what, good for Theresa May. Juncker and the EU leaders have crossed the road to pick a fight with her. Totally right to hit back.
Driving through St.Albans over the week, and whilst acknowledging the cheers of the masses, it was noticeable that they were far fewer election posters than usual for both the locals and precious few for the general election.
Comments
Just working those metaphor muscles, its a long campaign and twisting everything to the election is not for the faint hearted.
I was stuck on a (ram) packed Jubilee Line tube in the rush hour once between Southwark & London Bridge... after about 10 mins I thought I'd do the crossword, telling myself by the time I finished it I would be pulling into Upminster... 45 mins later, the crossword was finished.. and we hadn't moved!
There's also a natural middling effect. Companies take advantage of things like that with kettles. You have the Swanky kettle, for people with money to fritter away, for maybe twice the normal price. Then you have an Average kettle, and below that an Economy kettle. The poor will go Economy, but everybody else will go for the Average, even though there might well be sod all functional difference.
People don't like feeling like they're shopping poor. I remember when Aldi, Lidle and the now absent Netto were shops of mockery (if you brought in a Netto bag to school you'd be teased mercilessly). The shift to that being ok is one of the more interesting consumer trends in recent years.
But people are very good at compartmentalising and while it might be inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy to go out of their way to avoid paying in one area while eschewing freebies in another related one, nonetheless, I the price is undoubtedly a big part in how the quality of a newspaper is perceived.
- that the UK will have to bear costs of EU agencies relocating out of UK
- that the UK will have to settle the accounts for commitments
- BUT that the UK will have no right to any EU assets
They're living in cloud bloody cuckoo land, aren't they....
http://dlvr.it/P39X4b
Perhaps because of the internet this is no longer the case and the city pages these days have hardly any company or market news, mainly columns written by youthful writers (teenage scribblers) whinging about Brexit.
The paper has been going downhill for many years now and nobody would pay for it, so it now has to be given away free.
it's an appropriate retirement home for washed up George Osborne.
I remember you've been making the same prediction about The Guardian for donkeys years yet they've clung on with no sign yet of initiating a paywall - I wouldn't be so confident they can't hold out for another 5 or 10 years.
Also, you can click on regions and check the TCTC list on each.
The UK is not Greece.
@pppolitics: It's 20/1 for a Labour majority after #GE2017
Don't worry, Diane. We've done the maths... https://t.co/I4PPMarxTE https://twitter.com/pppolitics/status/859775368286396416/photo/1
Osborne stirring the pot again.
Turn? LOL. That's how they started.
If the other side replies "It is either on these terms of ours, or you can just walk away", then Mrs May and her team either accept, or walk away. As things stand, she will have to walk away.
This will then be praised in the media as being "strong and stable", as the economy crashes round us.
This is the weakest government I have ever known.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/03/armed-cops-swoop-mirror-chicken-outside-buckingham-palace/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfa3MHLLSWI
Which means it's either a negotiating position, or caused by a desire for us to leave without any deal. We'll find out which after the elections.
How long will it take for the Lib Dem leaflets to have an appropriate bar chart?
http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/general-election-2017-herts-ad-poll-says-anne-main-could-lose-st-albans-1-5000454
NO-ONE outside London reads it..
So not that powerful.
London centric people live in a bubble..
At the weigh-in, Macron said he wasn't going to employ invective. "I am not going to use clichés or insults. I’ll use hand-to-hand fighting to demonstrate that her ideas represent false solutions." I don't yet know the order of the topics, so can't predict the number of the round in which he'll first go down. But the way Macron is mixing violent metaphor with preppy talk makes him look as though he's fighting in the wrong weight - and perhaps suggests he's crapping himself. This will be bloody.
If you think the UK has a problem....at least we can just say "nah....on yer bike. WTO it is. We'll survive." Can the EU REALLY take that as an acceptable outcome?
That said, they are also Leave voting places, who like May better than Ozzy
They polled Mark Senior, 2,136 times.
And let's face it given how popular Mrs May is compared to loser Osborne nobody will take much notice of him anyway.
As Juncker might say: "If you stay you pay, if you leave you contribute".
In reality, the only acceptable numbers to the UK electorate will be a steadily decreasing EU bill down to a much smaller number.
The Evening News provided me with enough reading to last the Journey to East Putney station and there was a good crossword to fallback on in the event of a slow news day. I cannot remember what it used to cost, maybe sixpence.
Once they get wireless working on the underground they will not even be able to give away the Standard.
Granted, the EU seem to come up this in a way to maximise resentment, which is not entirely rational you expect a genuine negotiation.
Remember also that there are a number of players with differing agendas on the EU side of the table; on our side, there will be only one (which is of course the point of the current election, however 'irrelevant' some would say it is).
How can you have been entirely right when the two most popular papers - The Mail and The Sun - remain without a paywall and there's little indication that they'll adopt one (The Sun abandoned theirs IIRC). Their business model of clickbait and trashy celeb news seems to work OK for them. And except the Times and FT, the paywalls (Telegraph, Spectator etc) tend to allow a certain number of free articles. The Times may have made it a success but it still seems far from clear that this is a route the industry will be able move further down and remain viable in the long term.
I'm not sure that this is exactly good news, however. It's the kind of chaotic situation some of us warned about before the referendum.
So yes the tricky moniker applies.
I think Gower was the only seat with long-ish odds (8) and a surprise result in 2015. 2010 was possibly more 'boring'.
So, in 2010 they could potentially get about 600 results right by believing the betting odds to be roughly right and only 50 seats might need significant skill, including seats which appear marginal but often stay Labour like Hampstead.
Labour will finish closer to 25 than 35 - comedy casting leadership team and awful voter demographics;
The SNP will finish closer to 40 than 50 in Scotland - they look to be running out of steam and to some extent share the loser demographic that Labour usually has (I am wondering increasingly about them failing to hit 40);
The Lib Dems will make very few gains -little to no sign of any life beyond London and the South;
Turnout will be closer to 60 than 70. Who exactly are the left-leaners supposed to vote for?
We should be told!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Albans_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges · 5m5 minutes ago
You know what, good for Theresa May. Juncker and the EU leaders have crossed the road to pick a fight with her. Totally right to hit back.
Driving through St.Albans over the week, and whilst acknowledging the cheers of the masses, it was noticeable that they were far fewer election posters than usual for both the locals and precious few for the general election.