The Corbyn attack in his own words video has passed 3 million views, as the Abbott Marr interview passes half a million....
Sorry to blather on about this, but if those views are paid views, that is to say views put in people's feed by the Conservatives in exchange for money, then many of them are likely to have been 'viewed' for about 3 seconds before people see it's an ad and scroll away. 3 seconds counts as a 'view' in Facebook's eyes.
Secondly, 3m views really isn't a lot, the Heineken 'worlds apart' experiment video last month got about that in its first few days on Facebook (it's on about 6m now). My ex girlfriend managed to get 60m views on a single video of her she posted over one weekend.
It's not all bad news for the Tories, I doubt the BBC are paying to promote their interview content, meaning the views / shares there are largely organic (i.e. not paid) and therefore have much higher impact and reach. That means for me the Abbott Marr interview is probably the bigger story.
The Tory attack ad is effective but it is not the slam dunk people are saying it is.
The headline view count on digital video is a very poor metric, particularly if the views are being paid for. The best metrics are engagement (comments) and organic shares. The other one is %age of people who viewed the video to completion but none of us will have access to that data. My gut tells me it's low for the Tory attack ad but much higher for the Abbott interview.
The public counter for a Facebook "view" can be as little as 3 seconds.
So all that 3m view count tells me is the Tories are paying a lot of money to push it hard to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean it's effective.
Golly. Is Jezza now outmanoeuvring Theresa over Brexit? I've been critical of the Tory campaign, but even I didn't see that coming. At this rate Theresa will only have erstwhile Kippers to bank on, and we all know how fickle they can be. Gosh.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
Like any sensible person (including probably the majority of Labour MPs), I would view the possibility of a Corbyn-led government as a catastrophe unparalleled in peacetime British history. That anyone is seriously thinking of voting for him, except perhaps on the strict understanding that he's so far behind that there's no risk of him actually winning, is gobsmacking.
The Corbyn attack in his own words video has passed 3 million views, as the Abbott Marr interview passes half a million....
Sorry to blather on about this, but if those views are paid views, that is to say views put in people's feed by the Conservatives in exchange for money, then many of them are likely to have been 'viewed' for about 3 seconds before people see it's an ad and scroll away. 3 seconds counts as a 'view' in Facebook's eyes.
Secondly, 3m views really isn't a lot, the Heineken 'worlds apart' experiment video last month got about that in its first few days on Facebook (it's on about 6m now). My ex girlfriend managed to get 60m views on a single video of her she posted over one weekend.
It's not all bad news for the Tories, I doubt the BBC are paying to promote their interview content, meaning the views / shares there are largely organic (i.e. not paid) and therefore have much higher impact and reach. That means for me the Abbott Marr interview is probably the bigger story.
The Tory attack ad is effective but it is not the slam dunk people are saying it is.
The headline view count on digital video is a very poor metric, particularly if the views are being paid for. The best metrics are engagement (comments) and organic shares. The other one is %age of people who viewed the video to completion but none of us will have access to that data. My gut tells me it's low for the Tory attack ad but much higher for the Abbott interview.
The public counter for a Facebook "view" can be as little as 3 seconds.
So all that 3m view count tells me is the Tories are paying a lot of money to push it hard to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean it's effective.
Why are comments a good metric? I doubt whether many comments on this blog have changed opinions (with apologies to those who think they have!). Similarly 'organic' shares are just people sending messages to other people who, largely, already agree with them.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
Like any sensible person (including probably the majority of Labour MPs), I would view the possibility of a Corbyn-led government as a catastrophe unparalleled in peacetime British history. That anyone is seriously thinking of voting for him, except perhaps on the strict understanding that he's so far behind that there's no risk of him actually winning, is gobsmacking.
Coming after Brexit it would be par for a course...if it leads to the reverse of Brexit, that's a score draw.
While reading your link I came across this which is something we should all be terrified of. The EU liting the drawbridge and leaving the US and UK to our own devices.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
Like any sensible person (including probably the majority of Labour MPs), I would view the possibility of a Corbyn-led government as a catastrophe .
The Tories really should be emphasising how much Labour MPs opposed Corbyn and said he was not up to the job of LOTO. They might say different now, but if he is not up for that job, he certainly isn't up to the job of PM.
The Corbyn attack in his own words video has passed 3 million views, as the Abbott Marr interview passes half a million....
Sorry to blather on about this, but if those views are paid views, that is to say views put in people's feed by the Conservatives in exchange for money, then many of them are likely to have been 'viewed' for about 3 seconds before people see it's an ad and scroll away. 3 seconds counts as a 'view' in Facebook's eyes.
Secondly, 3m views really isn't a lot, the Heineken 'worlds apart' experiment video last month got about that in its first few days on Facebook (it's on about 6m now). My ex girlfriend managed to get 60m views on a single video of her she posted over one weekend.
It's not all bad news for the Tories, I doubt the BBC are paying to promote their interview content, meaning the views / shares there are largely organic (i.e. not paid) and therefore have much higher impact and reach. That means for me the Abbott Marr interview is probably the bigger story.
The Tory attack ad is effective but it is not the slam dunk people are saying it is.
The headline view count on digital video is a very poor metric, particularly if the views are being paid for. The best metrics are engagement (comments) and organic shares. The other one is %age of people who viewed the video to completion but none of us will have access to that data. My gut tells me it's low for the Tory attack ad but much higher for the Abbott interview.
The public counter for a Facebook "view" can be as little as 3 seconds.
So all that 3m view count tells me is the Tories are paying a lot of money to push it hard to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean it's effective.
No it doesn't, although the more people who see something for some amount of time, the more chance of it being effective (or counter productive, theoretically at least) with some number of people. Same thinking behind campaign posters.
The truth is we just don't know. The author of the ad can see exactly how many people watched 25% of it, 50% of it, 75% of it, all of it, etc. But unless anyone has a mole at CCHQ we won't see that data.
I can only speak of my experience on campaigns I've worked on, where by and large anywhere from 70 - 95% of paid views are for just a few seconds, i.e. just enough time for people to go "ugh, ad" and carry on scrolling.
%age viewed to completion is the gold standard, shares and comments are good publicly available metrics to judge the virality of a post.
The Tory attack ad has 8202 shares right now, an amateur video Momentum posted earlier today off a cyclist's gopro with him wishing Jeremy Corbyn good luck has about 5000.
The Conservatives need to be a bit more robust on University funding and point out a few key facts:
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't 2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well 3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
Ben Chu has a perceptive take in the Independent on the "No deal is better than a bad deal" fallacy that has made its way into the Conservative manifesto. As he points out that's nonsense because a "no deal" default is the outcome furthest away from the status quo. ...
That's garbage. It's very easy to give an example of a bad deal which is worse than no deal: one in which we fork out €100bn for nothing much in return. Nor is that an unrealistic hypothetical example; it's the EU27's opening position.
. in fact doesn't do a SINGLE thing that is effectual for Brexit?
Apart from adding two years to parliament's mandate at the end of the Brexit process to avoid a GE in the middle of final negotiations?
Come on! You think this is going to get us a better outcome?
You think a possible change of government as the negotiations reach their climax would produce a better one?
Actually we Brexit in 2019. The original election under the FTPA was 2020 ie after Brexit. Negotiations are likely to continue after Brexit but there is no reason to believe they would be wrapped up by 2022 which is the latest the next election can now be - and it could be earlier if the FTPA is abolished.
In any case what matters now is what is happening now, or in Theresa May's case, not happening.
The Corbyn attack in his own words video has passed 3 million views, as the Abbott Marr interview passes half a million....
Sorry to blather on about this, but if those views are paid views, that is to say views put in people's fe for a Facebook "view" can be as little as 3 seconds.
So all that 3m view count tells me is the Tories are paying a lot of money to push it hard to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean it's effective.
No it doesn't, although the more people who see something for some amount of time, the more chance of it being effective (or counter productive, theoretically at least) with some number of people. Same thinking behind campaign posters.
The truth is we just don't know. The author of the ad can see exactly how many people watched 25% of it, 50% of it, 75% of it, all of it, etc. But unless anyone has a mole at CCHQ we won't see that data.
I can only speak of my experience on campaigns I've worked on, where by and large anywhere from 70 - 95% of paid views are for just a few seconds, i.e. just enough time for people to go "ugh, ad" and carry on scrolling.
%age viewed to completion is the gold standard, shares and comments are good publicly available metrics to judge the virality of a post.
The Tory attack ad has 8202 shares right now, an amateur video Momentum posted earlier today off a cyclist's gopro with him wishing Jeremy Corbyn good luck has about 5000.
It's a powerful ad but it's not a slam dunk.
Never said I thought it was. But better to have your stuff seen than not seen so it has a chance to impact anything,
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
Yep, and it seems to be working. No one is interested in Brexit anymore, and Republicanist Corbyn is a distraction for the Tories that is not working. Jezza is playing his own game, while God only knows what May is up to.
Survation. @Survation May 28 More The 4th election poll of our series for @gmb will be released tomorrow night for Tuesday's programme. Join our PR list to receive full info.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
Like any sensible person (including probably the majority of Labour MPs), I would view the possibility of a Corbyn-led government as a catastrophe .
The Tories really should be emphasising how much Labour MPs opposed Corbyn and said he was not up to the job of LOTO. They might say different now, but if he is not up for that job, he certainly isn't up to the job of PM.
That would have been a lot more effective than the IRA stuff, with the added benefit of actually being true.
The Conservatives need to be a bit more robust on University funding and point out a few key facts:
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't 2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well 3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
the school fees are a totally shit policy introduced by a bunch of well off dickheads
I will vote blue but I had a wobble when Corbyn announced on fees since fundamentally it's the right policy
Why are comments a good metric? I doubt whether many comments on this blog have changed opinions (with apologies to those who think they have!). Similarly 'organic' shares are just people sending messages to other people who, largely, already agree with them.
If a post has an unusually high number of comments then that suggests it's sparked debate - more importantly it suggests people have watched it to completion, which is the gold standard metric that only the author can see.
Without access to the actual data it's all voodoo and entrail reading based on comments, shares etc - and even then the datasets are usually so big they can be fudged in one way or another (e.g. our ad bombed with everyone aged 25+ but 90% of people aged 18-24 loved it, etc!).
The point I keep repeating is to take the headline figure of number of views with a big pinch of salt, it may not be the game changer some people hope it might be.
As I said down thread the number of shares that attack ad has is similar to the number of shares of a cyclist's helmet cam of him meeting Corbyn and saying hi.
Your point is valid in both cases - both pieces of content are being shared by people who are already true believers.
She was patting non-whites and non-Christians on the back for being in the room, and she couldn't resist pointing out that none of them had yet been executed.
And it gets worse. The candidate, Ann Myatt, went on to say, "This happens to be about politics but if you could have things, as you said, about cricket and about maybe cooking - you know, that wonderful lady who won the Bake Off. All sorts of things."
Her message: hey, non-whites can achieve stuff! The person she is referring to is Nadiya Hussein, a British woman of Bangladeshi descent who wears a hijab and who won a TV competition. She might as well have said, "I'm not racist! I saw a brown-skinned person on the telly! I didn't brick my screen in! She won a competition. Wonderful!"
Myatt is a medic. I shudder to think what goes through her head when she treats black patients.
Incidentally, and slightly contradicting what I said earlier about the EU negotiating position, I did notice one intriguing snippet in the EU27 position paper on the financial settlement. Having said that the UK should pay up for its share of "all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union", they then go on to say:
On this basis, the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from all programmes as before the withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable Union legal rules.
That might be a chink of light, because it explicitly links the exit payment with the ongoing relationship, and acknowledges that we'd be due a share of the payouts as well as the liabilities. On an optimistic reading, that might mean they are rowing back on their initial position.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
Like any sensible person (including probably the majority of Labour MPs), I would view the possibility of a Corbyn-led government as a catastrophe .
The Tories really should be emphasising how much Labour MPs opposed Corbyn and said he was not up to the job of LOTO. They might say different now, but if he is not up for that job, he certainly isn't up to the job of PM.
A willy-waving contest about which leader got more votes in the most recent Labour and Conservative leadership elections is unlikely to help anyone. The Conservatives still lead comfortably in the polls.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
What do people think about tonight's TV showdown? I sense it could be a significant win for Corbyn, as he is much more comfortable on the platform than May, while he can also promise the earth in every area from student fees to the NHS. On the other hand, she is not only a very wooden, nervous performer but also has to defend grimly realistic fiscal policies.
One has raised a children vs one who doesn't want them (she could have adopted) One voted leave vs one voted remain One has a personality vs one who doesn't One has worked in a proper job vs one who has always been a career politician.
Theresa May cannot understand the stresses and strains of having children, doing chores and people who work in this country. Andrea Leadsom should have been elected leader against Theresa May.
Erm, your point one is just. Wow.
Theresa May is not a normal human being.
Most people in this country get married and have children and if they can't have children they adopt.
Is it safe to assume you won't be in favour of Ruth Davidson becoming leader?
One has raised a children vs one who doesn't want them (she could have adopted) One voted leave vs one voted remain One has a personality vs one who doesn't One has worked in a proper job vs one who has always been a career politician.
Theresa May cannot understand the stresses and strains of having children, doing chores and people who work in this country. Andrea Leadsom should have been elected leader against Theresa May.
One has raised a children vs one who doesn't want them (she could have adopted) One voted leave vs one voted remain One has a personality vs one who doesn't One has worked in a proper job vs one who has always been a career politician.
Theresa May cannot understand the stresses and strains of having children, doing chores and people who work in this country. Andrea Leadsom should have been elected leader against Theresa May.
Erm, your point one is just. Wow.
Theresa May is not a normal human being.
Most people in this country get married and have children and if they can't have children they adopt.
Is it safe to assume you won't be in favour of Ruth Davidson becoming leader?
Is anybody , she is a duffer.
Someone has to do it - pending someone with actual talent among any newbies elected and wowing the party, who is least worst amongst all the available figures?
What do people think about tonight's TV showdown? I sense it could be a significant win for Corbyn, as he is much more comfortable on the platform than May, while he can also promise the earth in every area from student fees to the NHS. On the other hand, she is not only a very wooden, nervous performer but also has to defend grimly realistic fiscal policies.
It might work the other way, precisely because the expectations are that she isn't a very good media performer; in narrative terms, she's become the underdog in the past few days.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
Like any sensible person (including probably the majority of Labour MPs), I would view the possibility of a Corbyn-led government as a catastrophe .
The Tories really should be emphasising how much Labour MPs opposed Corbyn and said he was not up to the job of LOTO. They might say different now, but if he is not up for that job, he certainly isn't up to the job of PM.
A willy-waving contest about which leader got more votes in the most recent Labour and Conservative leadership elections is unlikely to help anyone. The Conservatives still lead comfortably in the polls.
Yes, but I'd have thought reminding some Labour waverers how much division there has been would be of moderate usefulness - they are presently showing admirable unity.
The Conservatives need to be a bit more robust on University funding and point out a few key facts:
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't 2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well 3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
Labour should promise to bring back maintenance grants too, and housing benefit for students. Universities don't care who pays, so long as they get the money.
I would love it if the Tories did argue exactly as you propose.
If a poll gets leaked before the embargo can it not just stay out there. The poll won't change whether it is released or not.
Just imagine you've spent £20,000 on a phone poll for your show on Tuesday and some bugger leaks it.
They should not be so stupid as to give people the results before the show then, always som escrot eout to make a buck or trying to look like a bigshot.
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
The Conservatives need to be a bit more robust on University funding and point out a few key facts:
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't 2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well 3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
Labour should promise to bring back maintenance grants too, and housing benefit for students. Universities don't care who pays, so long as they get the money.
I would love it if the Tories did argue exactly as you propose.
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
Mr. kle4, I agree. The vast majority of Labour MPs signed a motion of no confidence against Corbyn. The Conservatives haven't mentioned this.
The Conservatives have the best potential being squandered by the worst leader since Caligula led the Roman army to invade Britain, changed his mind and had them collect seashells on the coast of Gaul.
The worst ever embargo poll press release was during the Indyref, the press release was sent out on the Saturday afternoon.
I'll not embarrass the pollster by naming them, but all pollsters when they send out an embargoed poll, they put in the subject header 'Embargoed poll release' and the first line of the email says something like, In very big bold letters,
***EMBARGOED UNTIL 1800 HRS 27 MAY 2017***
MUST CREDIT COMRES / SUNDAY MIRROR / INDEPENDENT
Well this other pollster during the Indyref didn't do any of that.
They put in normal font, at the bottom of their email, in normal font size
'This poll is embargoed until 00.01 Monday'
Unfortunately most journos and media organisations didn't read the entire email and tweeted out the figures, including PB.
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
As for the election, it hasn't wasted any significant time, because of the French and German elections. But there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a large majority will strengthen the PM's hand. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you rather a 10-seat majority for Theresa May or a 100-seat majority for Jeremy Corbyn?
Like any sensible person (including probably the majority of Labour MPs), I would view the possibility of a Corbyn-led government as a catastrophe .
The Tories really should be emphasising how much Labour MPs opposed Corbyn and said he was not up to the job of LOTO. They might say different now, but if he is not up for that job, he certainly isn't up to the job of PM.
A willy-waving contest about which leader got more votes in the most recent Labour and Conservative leadership elections is unlikely to help anyone. The Conservatives still lead comfortably in the polls.
Yes, but I'd have thought reminding some Labour waverers how much division there has been would be of moderate usefulness - they are presently showing admirable unity.
To a point but it is less than a year since nearly half of Conservative MPs voted against Theresa May in the leadership election. Now, I know it is not the same thing but superficially it is only a year or so since large numbers of MPs did not want either Corbyn or May. To the voter on the Clapham omnibus, it's a wash.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
The Conservatives need to be a bit more robust on University funding and point out a few key facts:
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't 2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well 3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
Labour should promise to bring back maintenance grants too, and housing benefit for students. Universities don't care who pays, so long as they get the money.
I would love it if the Tories did argue exactly as you propose.
Why don't Labour just promise that everyone will get £100k a year tax free from the government and be done with it?
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
It's...middling.
It's The West Wing meets 24 and is somehow less satisfying than both of those shows.
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
It's...middling.
Yep, you can skip a crap scene and miss nothing. I like the background plot, but the episodic stuff is a little....weak.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP/Green though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Indeed NOM with the Liberals holding balance of power is the best outcome for the country. Will force an EEA style soft Brexit, which is the best result we could hope for from here. And will see the back of the risible May. Won't happen though.
I see Davidson is now aping May, dodged out of BBC radio show this morning at very last minute and sent one of her donkeys instead. These people are shit unless they have scripts and a busload of dummies brought in specially, shit scared to get a question from the public.
Incidentally, and slightly contradicting what I said earlier about the EU negotiating position, I did notice one intriguing snippet in the EU27 position paper on the financial settlement. Having said that the UK should pay up for its share of "all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union", they then go on to say:
On this basis, the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from all programmes as before the withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable Union legal rules.
That might be a chink of light, because it explicitly links the exit payment with the ongoing relationship, and acknowledges that we'd be due a share of the payouts as well as the liabilities. On an optimistic reading, that might mean they are rowing back on their initial position.
I think we make a rookie error (on both this site, and in the UK generally). We see the EU as a monolithic entity with one view. In reality, it's a barely functional set of fiefdoms that are constantly at war with each other, and with differing goals. On top of which, the net contributions have a great deal of additional say, because they can always threaten to pull the plug.
Some groups inside the EU are both friendly and sensible. Others are downright hostile. Most have their own goals, and Brexit is important to them only in as much as it allows them to further them.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
The Tory Manifesto did neither. To reiterate a point said on here yesterday, that for all the talk about the JAMs there is very little in the manifesto which outlines how the May government is going to help them.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Indeed NOM with the Liberals holding balance of power is the best outcome for the country. Will force an EEA style soft Brexit, which is the best result we could hope for from here. And will see the back of the risible May. Won't happen though.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Anyone else watched Designated Survivor yet? So far....it's ok, a thick version of The West Wing with some conspiracy theory inserted as the plot driver.
It's...middling.
It's The West Wing meets 24 and is somehow less satisfying than both of those shows.
The West Wing is one of the greatest TV shows of all time. Designated Survivor is, err, not.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Angus Robertson may lose his seat, they would almost certainly need the LDs too
While reading your link I came across this which is something we should all be terrified of. The EU liting the drawbridge and leaving the US and UK to our own devices.
I look forward to your resounding denunciation of Merkel as a 'Little European' in just the same way you'd denounce May if she said the same.....
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
.
That it does so via fantasy economics rather undermines that for me. If I could believe it, I'd vote for plenty of the stuff in it. What good does it do though if it is not to be believed? You don't get brownie points for giving people a positive vision if that vision is not achievable.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
The Conservatives need to be a bit more robust on University funding and point out a few key facts:
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't 2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well 3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
Labour should promise to bring back maintenance grants too, and housing benefit for students. Universities don't care who pays, so long as they get the money.
I would love it if the Tories did argue exactly as you propose.
Why don't Labour just promise that everyone will get £100k a year tax free from the government and be done with it?
Tories tax break for millionaires is closest to that level of giveaway
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Mike S on Twitter:" I'm hearing that overnight there'll be another poll where CON lead is narrower that at GE2015
Survation? 6% < 6.6%
What were the full Survation numbers?
43-37-8-4
Sorry just seen them
prepare for a knock on your door.
??
Poll police Bob, but more likely a Tory goon squad round to beat the crap out of you for posting polls that have them in single figure leads
It's still technically embargoed, the goon squad wouldn't waste time when the poll police have it covered - they have a lot of nervous Tories to beat into shape.
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP/Green though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Angus Robertson may lose his seat, they would almost certainly need the LDs too
Just think it's not impossible that in two weeks time Jezza is PM, the Tories are in Opposition and a new Conservative leadership contest is under-way?
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
100 seats are needed for Lab majority, and that isnt goint to happen. If May loses seats though she will be toast, having gambled and lost. NOC is my preferred outcome. It will mean that we have to have a bipartisan and inclusive Brexit, not May's purple Brexit. The nation will come together.
Jezz could be PM through a coalition with SNP though (maybe Sinn Fein would actually show up for a change and vote with Jezz for vital votes? )
That would be a good outcome, Angus Robertson would be an excellent Deputy PM, and having Scots in the Brexit negotiations would be a massive step forward.
Angus Robertson may lose his seat, they would almost certainly need the LDs too
Lib-Dems would only do "confidence and supply" this time?
Still, a Lab/SNP/Green coalition with Lib-Dems offering support on key votes isn't out of the question.
Naturally, Labour are promising to shower everyone with money.
I actually feel that it's not just that. Labour's manifesto, for all its fantasy economics and other flaws, addresses two things:
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
The Tory Manifesto did neither. To reiterate a point said on here yesterday, that for all the talk about the JAMs there is very little in the manifesto which outlines how the May government is going to help them.
She will help them by (a) keeping the economy going, (b) slowly reducing the deficit, (c) keeping taxes to sane levels.
None of which Corbyn will deliver.
It may be boring, but it's what we need to get through the next few years.
Incidentally, and slightly contradicting what I said earlier about the EU negotiating position, I did notice one intriguing snippet in the EU27 position paper on the financial settlement. Having said that the UK should pay up for its share of "all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union", they then go on to say:
On this basis, the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from all programmes as before the withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable Union legal rules.
That might be a chink of light, because it explicitly links the exit payment with the ongoing relationship, and acknowledges that we'd be due a share of the payouts as well as the liabilities. On an optimistic reading, that might mean they are rowing back on their initial position.
I do hope someone among Britain's 'expert' diplomats and 'professional' politicians is as willing to look at the details as you are.
Incidentally, and slightly contradicting what I said earlier about the EU negotiating position, I did notice one intriguing snippet in the EU27 position paper on the financial settlement. Having said that the UK should pay up for its share of "all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union", they then go on to say:
On this basis, the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from all programmes as before the withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable Union legal rules.
That might be a chink of light, because it explicitly links the exit payment with the ongoing relationship, and acknowledges that we'd be due a share of the payouts as well as the liabilities. On an optimistic reading, that might mean they are rowing back on their initial position.
I think we make a rookie error (on both this site, and in the UK generally). We see the EU as a monolithic entity with one view. In reality, it's a barely functional set of fiefdoms that are constantly at war with each other, and with differing goals. On top of which, the net contributions have a great deal of additional say, because they can always threaten to pull the plug.
Some groups inside the EU are both friendly and sensible. Others are downright hostile. Most have their own goals, and Brexit is important to them only in as much as it allows them to further them.
Just a thought - what would Labour's policy of abolishing University fees and reintroduction of maintenance grants do wrt the Barnett formula. Would it 1) result in a significant increase in funding to the Scottish Government because they would now get their share of the increased spending without almost any additional cost (because they already have no fees for Scottish and EU students) or, if not, 2) put the Scottish uni sector under pressure because they would lose the fees they currently are able to levy on English and Welsh students?
Comments
Surely Tories are paying on a Pay Per Click basis
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3669712/angela-merkel-says-us-and-britain-are-no-longer-reliable-allies-as-she-promises-eu-will-fight-for-own-destiny/
I can only speak of my experience on campaigns I've worked on, where by and large anywhere from 70 - 95% of paid views are for just a few seconds, i.e. just enough time for people to go "ugh, ad" and carry on scrolling.
%age viewed to completion is the gold standard, shares and comments are good publicly available metrics to judge the virality of a post.
The Tory attack ad has 8202 shares right now, an amateur video Momentum posted earlier today off a cyclist's gopro with him wishing Jeremy Corbyn good luck has about 5000.
It's a powerful ad but it's not a slam dunk.
1) Over 50% of young people do not go to university. Labour's policy would transfer the costs from those that do benefit (but who retain a safety net if they don't) to those who don't
2) Student loans don't just pay for tuition - people take them out for living costs as well
3) Shifting university funding to the state means that it has to compete with other areas of public expenditure. This inevitably leads to caps/rationing of places and limits opportunity. Universities will target people who are prepared to pay.
Abbott: 8,201 shares, 6,600 reactions, 2,500 comments
The top viewed Labour video I could find was the Maxine Peake PPB with 1.5million views.
Peake: 2,952 shares, 4,000 reactions, 124 comments.
I'd say the Tory videos were doing better.....
In any case what matters now is what is happening now, or in Theresa May's case, not happening.
One journalist missed the bit where it said embargoed until 00.01 BST 30th of May
More
The 4th election poll of our series for @gmb will be released tomorrow night for Tuesday's programme. Join our PR list to receive full info.
I will vote blue but I had a wobble when Corbyn announced on fees since fundamentally it's the right policy
Without access to the actual data it's all voodoo and entrail reading based on comments, shares etc - and even then the datasets are usually so big they can be fudged in one way or another (e.g. our ad bombed with everyone aged 25+ but 90% of people aged 18-24 loved it, etc!).
The point I keep repeating is to take the headline figure of number of views with a big pinch of salt, it may not be the game changer some people hope it might be.
As I said down thread the number of shares that attack ad has is similar to the number of shares of a cyclist's helmet cam of him meeting Corbyn and saying hi.
Your point is valid in both cases - both pieces of content are being shared by people who are already true believers.
Her message: hey, non-whites can achieve stuff! The person she is referring to is Nadiya Hussein, a British woman of Bangladeshi descent who wears a hijab and who won a TV competition. She might as well have said, "I'm not racist! I saw a brown-skinned person on the telly! I didn't brick my screen in! She won a competition. Wonderful!"
Myatt is a medic. I shudder to think what goes through her head when she treats black patients.
On this basis, the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from all programmes as before the withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable Union legal rules.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/financial-settlement-essential-principles-draft-position-paper_en.pdf
That might be a chink of light, because it explicitly links the exit payment with the ongoing relationship, and acknowledges that we'd be due a share of the payouts as well as the liabilities. On an optimistic reading, that might mean they are rowing back on their initial position.
Brexit is a car crash.
There ain't no Brexit but a car crash Brexit...
Who on Earth would become Con LOTO if Theresa falls?
Boris? Andrea Leadson? Michael Gove? A-Nother?
He's/she's definitely on the wind-up.
https://youtu.be/pM5uK3BvjY0
There are a lot of Mums on Facebook, and they really are angry about this on my feed.
I would love it if the Tories did argue exactly as you propose.
The Conservatives have the best potential being squandered by the worst leader since Caligula led the Roman army to invade Britain, changed his mind and had them collect seashells on the coast of Gaul.
I'll not embarrass the pollster by naming them, but all pollsters when they send out an embargoed poll, they put in the subject header 'Embargoed poll release' and the first line of the email says something like, In very big bold letters,
***EMBARGOED UNTIL 1800 HRS 27 MAY 2017***
MUST CREDIT COMRES / SUNDAY MIRROR / INDEPENDENT
Well this other pollster during the Indyref didn't do any of that.
They put in normal font, at the bottom of their email, in normal font size
'This poll is embargoed until 00.01 Monday'
Unfortunately most journos and media organisations didn't read the entire email and tweeted out the figures, including PB.
Sorry just seen them
The 'mums' issue might help explain the fall in support for the Tories among women
Some groups inside the EU are both friendly and sensible. Others are downright hostile. Most have their own goals, and Brexit is important to them only in as much as it allows them to further them.
2.7m views
60,000 shares
974 comments
(a. people's desire for a positive vision for the future - the ways in which the country can progress
(b. Bread and butter issues
The Tory Manifesto did neither. To reiterate a point said on here yesterday, that for all the talk about the JAMs there is very little in the manifesto which outlines how the May government is going to help them.
Anyone watching American Gods? Mental.
As I remember you were very keen to report the share prices 11 months ago.
Although you can get votes with that approach. (I am not ruling out that plenty do think it achievable).
Really doc, you know better than that.
Still, a Lab/SNP/Green coalition with Lib-Dems offering support on key votes isn't out of the question.
JCICIPM?
Macron launches extraordinary attack on Russian state media while Putin denies meddling in the French election during the leaders' tense first meeting
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4552772/Putin-DENIES-meddling-French-election.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
She will help them by (a) keeping the economy going, (b) slowly reducing the deficit, (c) keeping taxes to sane levels.
None of which Corbyn will deliver.
It may be boring, but it's what we need to get through the next few years.
1) result in a significant increase in funding to the Scottish Government because they would now get their share of the increased spending without almost any additional cost (because they already have no fees for Scottish and EU students) or, if not,
2) put the Scottish uni sector under pressure because they would lose the fees they currently are able to levy on English and Welsh students?
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/869238531385937922