I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
Why anyone thought that northern folk would all rush to vote Tory instead of UKIP was beyond me (same goes with Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales). Most northerners, other than the older folk, have voting intentions of "anyone but the tories". The UKIP vote was a one off issue, and the image of the Tories wasn't magically changed because of that (if anything, Gove and Boris reminded everyone again). Predictably, to anyone who is from the north, they went back to their roots.
Whoever tipped up Canterbury at 33/1 and backing Labour in Labour held seats odds against, I owe you a pint or two.
Yet, the Tories actually polled very well in the North East (the only region to show a Lab/Con swing) Yorkshire and Humberside, and Cumbria, as well as Scotland. Cheshire stands out as an area they did very badly, but in general, it was the South that produced the surprise losses.
But nowhere near enough to justify the 25 point lead everyone was gushing over, the swing was tiny (and the NE had a lot of room to swing to the Tories). That rush will never happen in the places I listed; I believe there's just too much of a die hard attitude towards not supporting the Tory party in the poorer areas and within the youth vote.
The underlying picture is, according to the analysis I've seen, a more complex one of 'middle class' remain-leaving voters moving away from the Tories as they gather in more working class leave-leaning folk. This will have been happening in every seat, manifesting in swings to the Tories where the latter outnumber the former, as in many urban northern seats.
The question is whether the Tories can deliver on May's 'JAM' agenda to consolidate this trend or, more likely, the combined effect of a weak, divided DUP-propped up government re-toxifying the Tories and the chaos of Brexit will put this trend into reverse?
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
You can't really join up with people who are operating independently...
And anyway, the independent operators didn't have any data, only graft. The only way to know what's going on really is via polling. Unfortunately much of Labour's private polling during the election was worse than useless, though there were signs towards the end that they were starting to pick up the vote shift.
My opinion is that parties need to do deep+narrow polling, not thin+wide. ie a few thorough constituency polls that can pick up changes that are missed by canvass returns. Local parties assumed they knew what was going on (and that it was going quite badly) because they were in contact with many thousands of voters. The national party failed the local parties by not plugging the information gap. That gap could've been plugged by better polling rather than by anecdotes from Momentum.
I think there are lots of lessons from GE2017 campaign, which I don't have time to go into now, save to say the electorate is a lot more volatile now than the opinion pollsters can keep up with given their much more rigid modelling.
Campaigns, leadership and messaging all matter. I think the electorate is far less ideological than either side likes to think, and much more frustrated and transactional.
That means it's easier to both fall back, and to find a way back, and why the Tories/Labour being either "in" or "out" of power for 10-20 years each, off the back of definitive trends and swings either which way due to electoral cycles, is probably wrong for the future.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I believe there has also been research suggesting that a loud duck-quack sound should be used in place of current vehicle horns, as a less intrusive but equally effective way of getting attention?
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
Mr. M, individual noises for cars might be a bad idea because you might not think they're a car because every one will sound different. If you're on a country lane then any old sound will probably do, but in a busy city where there's a lot of noise it's useful to actually know there's traffic.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
It doent really make economic sense to buy a new car, it depreciates circa 30-50% in the first year.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Yes. Ilford North was probably the most hard-fought marginal in the country, and the thousands of activists who worked flat out for a month clearly believe 'they' achieved the big swing to Labour. Yet in next door and quite similar Chingford & Woodford Labour got an even bigger swing by doing relatively little. In a GE the ground game, at least for the major parties, makes far less difference than activists think.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I think that's true at low speeds, but if you're living on a main road (i.e. 40+ mph), I think the tyre noise becomes more significant.
Anyway, I think we're a long way from this happening.
Less than a decade, I think.
It will revolutionise many things, including living patterns.
There was a Horizon programme recently in which the scientists working on electric driverless cars painted an optimistic vision of a future with streets free of parking, reclaimed for kids playing ball and the like - when we need our car we will press a button at home and it will appear silently and magically outside the door, retrieved from some distant underground garage.
Experience suggests that the benefits of progress will come with unforeseen downsides - just as the future of short working weeks and tons of leisure time painted by similar optimists at the dawn of the electronic age has turned into people tied 24/7 to our electronic devices, checking our work emails whilst we sit on the beach....
A hung parliament was not that much of a surprise. The Tories only just got a majority in 2015 with a 7 point lead. Several polls including Survation and Yougov were giving them only a 1 to 6 point lead on eve of poll. Nearly every poll gave them a single digit lead.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
Although that's true, we're talking here about roads with houses along them (and by extension, pedestrians) rather than motorways and other higher speed scenarios.
Those dissatisfied with May of course wont necessarily be voting for Corbyn. Many of them will be Tory voters who are angry at her losing their majority -but will still vote Tory. Those dissasified with Corbyn however will almost certainly not be voting Labour.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
It doent really make economic sense to buy a new car, it depreciates circa 30-50% in the first year.
If you keep it say seven years and choose a model that holds some value (at least a quarter after seven years, at modest mileage, is achievable) then it can make sense. Increasingly people are moving to the US car rental system and buying PCP type deals to effectively get new cars where the depreciation and inbuilt interest costs are all hidden by being wrapped up into a complex mix of upfront, final and monthly payments. I reckon buying outright is a better bet than some of those deals.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I think that's true at low speeds, but if you're living on a main road (i.e. 40+ mph), I think the tyre noise becomes more significant.
Anyway, I think we're a long way from this happening.
Less than a decade, I think.
It will revolutionise many things, including living patterns.
There was a Horizon programme recently in which the scientists working on electric driverless cars painted an optimistic vision of a future with streets free of parking, reclaimed for kids playing ball and the like - when we need our car we will press a button at home and it will appear silently and magically outside the door, retrieved from some distant underground garage.
Experience suggests that the benefits of progress will come with unforeseen downsides - just as the future of short working weeks and tons of leisure time painted by similar optimists at the dawn of the electronic age has turned into people tied 24/7 to our electronic devices, checking our work emails whilst we sit on the beach....
As I've said passim, it'll change our travel patterns (and by extension many work patterns). For one thing, travel will become much more integrated.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I think that's true at low speeds, but if you're living on a main road (i.e. 40+ mph), I think the tyre noise becomes more significant.
Anyway, I think we're a long way from this happening.
Less than a decade, I think.
It will revolutionise many things, including living patterns.
My children will be the last generation (in a human scale, not the SNP definition) to learn to drive through the instructor/lesson model.
Driverless cars aren't that far away from the mainstream now. I see that the US are currently legislating to make it easier to allow them on the roads.
The report hints that his wife is a grandmother but that the grandchildren might be from a previous relationship of hers. Perhaps he has other undisclosed grandchildren.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
Although that's true, we're talking here about roads with houses along them (and by extension, pedestrians) rather than motorways and other higher speed scenarios.
There are plenty of houses within the noise envelope of motorways.
With the advent of self-driving cars, pedestrian safety would effectively be a solved problem at such speed (and traffic flow would be a great deal less stop/start).
In any event, electric cars would massively reduce both noise and air pollution in cities.
I think there are lots of lessons from GE2017 campaign, which I don't have time to go into now, save to say the electorate is a lot more volatile now than the opinion pollsters can keep up with given their much more rigid modelling.
Campaigns, leadership and messaging all matter. I think the electorate is far less ideological than either side likes to think, and much more frustrated and transactional.
That means it's easier to both fall back, and to find a way back, and why the Tories/Labour being either "in" or "out" of power for 10-20 years each, off the back of definitive trends and swings either which way due to electoral cycles, is probably wrong for the future.
Most on here have a weird obsession with politics, the electorate isn't bothered until an election comes along and their vote is based on soundbites and feel. Farage got that, so did Corbyn, Blair is the best example. For every tribalist there's loads more votes up for grabs, recent elections have shown that the type of bland centrist so revered on here doesn't wash anymore.
Those dissatisfied with May of course wont necessarily be voting for Corbyn. Many of them will be Tory voters who are angry at her losing their majority -but will still vote Tory. Those dissasified with Corbyn however will almost certainly not be voting Labour.
The first part is true, the second not - latest poll still shows 20-odd % of Labour voters dissatisfied with Corbyn. Actually I think it's the same thing in both cases - party support will always include some people who grit their teeth and support a party even if they don't like the leader.
At present, there are more Tories who don't like May than Labour voters who don't like Corbyn. That's relevant for turnout and support for a coup, but I wouldn't overrate it.
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I think that's true at low speeds, but if you're living on a main road (i.e. 40+ mph), I think the tyre noise becomes more significant.
Anyway, I think we're a long way from this happening.
Less than a decade, I think.
It will revolutionise many things, including living patterns.
There was a Horizon programme recently in which the scientists working on electric driverless cars painted an optimistic vision of a future with streets free of parking, reclaimed for kids playing ball and the like - when we need our car we will press a button at home and it will appear silently and magically outside the door, retrieved from some distant underground garage.
Experience suggests that the benefits of progress will come with unforeseen downsides - just as the future of short working weeks and tons of leisure time painted by similar optimists at the dawn of the electronic age has turned into people tied 24/7 to our electronic devices, checking our work emails whilst we sit on the beach....
As I've said passim, it'll change our travel patterns (and by extension many work patterns). For one thing, travel will become much more integrated.
And a lot cheaper - certainly for those who today own cars.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
Mr. Glenn, inflation's 2.6%. This kind of exaggeration is just daft.
2.6 is an average. This figure will mask that some items are falling in cost whilst some others have increased by ~10%.
Maybe, but ... shirts?
I've just organised an evening at my club for a visiting tailor. An Indian bloke called Thai John. Bespoke suits, shirts. Very popular with the members.
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians.
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
I think that's true at low speeds, but if you're living on a main road (i.e. 40+ mph), I think the tyre noise becomes more significant.
Anyway, I think we're a long way from this happening.
Less than a decade, I think.
It will revolutionise many things, including living patterns.
There was a Horizon programme recently in which the scientists working on electric driverless cars painted an optimistic vision of a future with streets free of parking, reclaimed for kids playing ball and the like - when we need our car we will press a button at home and it will appear silently and magically outside the door, retrieved from some distant underground garage.
Experience suggests that the benefits of progress will come with unforeseen downsides - just as the future of short working weeks and tons of leisure time painted by similar optimists at the dawn of the electronic age has turned into people tied 24/7 to our electronic devices, checking our work emails whilst we sit on the beach....
We live in a small village on a road which becomes a moderately busy rat-run for an hour each morning and afternoon... Although it's a 30mph limit not many stick to it*; 40mph is the norm.
For me the issue is tyre and air noise, not engine noise, plus just the sheer safety issue of cars coming past at speeds that could kill you if you happened to step out (as sadly happened to our old dog a few years back).
All of which is to say, whilst electric cars are no doubt a good thing for the environment, I really can't beleive they will make busy roads much more pleasant to live on.
(* I am thinking of building a bird box in the shape and colour of a speed camera and sticking it up in the front garden. Not an original idea but it might make a few people slow down!)
Off topic, I see that Volvo will stop making any new petrol- or diesel-only car models from 2019; they'll all be electric or hybrid. I wonder when will be the last date when it makes sense to buy a new petrol car; a few years away yet, I'd have thought?
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
It doent really make economic sense to buy a new car, it depreciates circa 30-50% in the first year.
If you keep it say seven years and choose a model that holds some value (at least a quarter after seven years, at modest mileage, is achievable) then it can make sense. Increasingly people are moving to the US car rental system and buying PCP type deals to effectively get new cars where the depreciation and inbuilt interest costs are all hidden by being wrapped up into a complex mix of upfront, final and monthly payments. I reckon buying outright is a better bet than some of those deals.
And PCP could well be the source of the next financial crisis, given the scale of uptake.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
"Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well"
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
"Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well"
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
Just the "mood music" we're hearing.
I think there's already quite a lot of common ground.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
"Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well"
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
Just the "mood music" we're hearing.
I think there's already quite a lot of common ground.
I think rcs had some quite positive feedback on the previous thread.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
"Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well"
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
Just the "mood music" we're hearing.
I think there's already quite a lot of common ground.
I think rcs had some quite positive feedback on the previous thread.
Didn't see it but doesn't surprise me. I think Davis and Barnier are going to pull off a deal that it mutually advantageous to both sides...
Moneyweek magazine's investment tip is to buy a house on a busy main road, on grounds that in years to come the traffic noise and pollution will mostly disappear, as will the 25% reduction in property value that typically hits nice houses next to busy roads.
Surely most of the noise comes from the tyres on the road?
No, the engine. This is why (very quiet) electric cars can actually be quite dangerous to pedestrians..
I think that's true at low speeds, but if you're living on a main road (i.e. 40+ mph), I think the tyre noise becomes more significant.
Anyway, I think we're a long way from this happening.
Less than a decade, I think.
It will revolutionise many things, including living patterns.
There was a Horizon programme recently in which the scientists working on electric driverless cars painted an optimistic vision of a future with streets free of parking, reclaimed for kids playing ball and the like - when we need our car we will press a button at home and it will appear silently and magically outside the door, retrieved from some distant underground garage.
Experience suggests that the benefits of progress will come with unforeseen downsides - just as the future of short working weeks and tons of leisure time painted by similar optimists at the dawn of the electronic age has turned into people tied 24/7 to our electronic devices, checking our work emails whilst we sit on the beach....
We live in a small village on a road which becomes a moderately busy rat-run for an hour each morning and afternoon... Although it's a 30mph limit not many stick to it*; 40mph is the norm.
For me the issue is tyre and air noise, not engine noise, plus just the sheer safety issue of cars coming past at speeds that could kill you if you happened to step out (as sadly happened to our old dog a few years back).
All of which is to say, whilst electric cars are no doubt a good thing for the environment, I really can't beleive they will make busy roads much more pleasant to live on.
(* I am thinking of building a bird box in the shape and colour of a speed camera and sticking it up in the front garden. Not an original idea but it might make a few people slow down!)
Self driving cars would stick to the speed limit, and probably avoid hitting dogs rather better than the human operated version.
F1: curious how practically no-one wants the halo. I'm more neutral than most, but so far I haven't seen anyone pro-halo and many people who think it's totally ridiculous.
9/10 teams were opposed but because it's a safety issue the FIA can impose it.
It was attitudes like his 5 years ago that got people like me campaigning to leave. Voters don't like being called silly, he can't help himself.
He wasn't calling voters silly; he was calling his Eurosceptic colleagues silly. His comments below look spot on to me:
"The idea that because we’re having a sort of rough old time, which as I say, in all the governments I have served in I can remember some rougher than this, the idea that you turn to a total irrelevance. It is in an irrelevance: you create turmoil on a great subject...at the moment we’re holding the confidence of the markets, you’d throw absolute confusion over our continued involvement in the European Union,” he said.
"I cannot think of anything sillier to do than hold a referendum. I’m not keen on referendums, I see no case for this referendum.”
A vote would not settle Britain’s relationship with the EU, he said.
“It would settle nothing; particularly it would settle nothing with the frenzied eurosceptics, who keep believing that European bogeys are under the bed any time we get into any problems.”
“If you ask the public what are their priorities at this difficult time, what would they like to see us turn our attention to for three weeks and campaign about, the idea that they’re all demanding a referendum on the European Union would be regarded as ridiculous; it’d be out of sight as a public demand, as a priority,” he said.
“It’s the demand of a few right-wing journalists and a few extreme nationalist politicians.”
It isn't clear whether what Nick describes is actually objective information about the progress of the campaign, or simply the enthusiastic zeal and messianic hope of the converted? It is quite possible to be enthusiastically hopeful and go down to crashing defeat.
That's certainly true, and it's what I thought was happening until mid-campaign. But there are two factors that made it different.
First, the presence of a ground campaign vs the absence of one does make a difference - it became gradually obvious (lack of posters, few and low-key leaflets, little street presence) that the Tories were taking their marginals for granted, and many people didn't like that. As Fox observes, there are simply a lot of Labour activists now, and it's therefore possible to have an active presence in far more places. Conversely, there were several reports of Tory MPs in marginals spending most of the day in neighbouring target seats - in Broxtowe, the Tories were positively boasting of it.
Second, Momentum was deploying techniques used in the Sanders campaign which were relatively new. They hoped they'd work but didn't really know; however, the mainstream party operation was barely aware it was happening.
It was attitudes like his 5 years ago that got people like me campaigning to leave. Voters don't like being called silly, he can't help himself.
He wasn't calling voters silly; he was calling his Eurosceptic colleagues silly. His comments below look spot on to me:
"The idea that because we’re having a sort of rough old time, which as I say, in all the governments I have served in I can remember some rougher than this, the idea that you turn to a total irrelevance. It is in an irrelevance: you create turmoil on a great subject...at the moment we’re holding the confidence of the markets, you’d throw absolute confusion over our continued involvement in the European Union,” he said.
"I cannot think of anything sillier to do than hold a referendum. I’m not keen on referendums, I see no case for this referendum.”
A vote would not settle Britain’s relationship with the EU, he said.
“It would settle nothing; particularly it would settle nothing with the frenzied eurosceptics, who keep believing that European bogeys are under the bed any time we get into any problems.”
“If you ask the public what are their priorities at this difficult time, what would they like to see us turn our attention to for three weeks and campaign about, the idea that they’re all demanding a referendum on the European Union would be regarded as ridiculous; it’d be out of sight as a public demand, as a priority,” he said.
“It’s the demand of a few right-wing journalists and a few extreme nationalist politicians.”
Well 52% of us interpreted that as him calling us extreme right wingers, read the last line. We resent it and voted accordingly, yet he continues to bang the same old drum. Its why in the unlikely event of another referendum Leave would win more comfortably.
It was attitudes like his 5 years ago that got people like me campaigning to leave. Voters don't like being called silly, he can't help himself.
He wasn't calling voters silly; he was calling his Eurosceptic colleagues silly. His comments below look spot on to me:
"The idea that because we’re having a sort of rough old time, which as I say, in all the governments I have served in I can remember some rougher than this, the idea that you turn to a total irrelevance. It is in an irrelevance: you create turmoil on a great subject...at the moment we’re holding the confidence of the markets, you’d throw absolute confusion over our continued involvement in the European Union,” he said.
"I cannot think of anything sillier to do than hold a referendum. I’m not keen on referendums, I see no case for this referendum.”
A vote would not settle Britain’s relationship with the EU, he said.
“It would settle nothing; particularly it would settle nothing with the frenzied eurosceptics, who keep believing that European bogeys are under the bed any time we get into any problems.”
“If you ask the public what are their priorities at this difficult time, what would they like to see us turn our attention to for three weeks and campaign about, the idea that they’re all demanding a referendum on the European Union would be regarded as ridiculous; it’d be out of sight as a public demand, as a priority,” he said.
“It’s the demand of a few right-wing journalists and a few extreme nationalist politicians.”
Well 52% of us interpreted that as him calling us extreme right wingers, read the last line. We resent it and voted accordingly, yet he continues to bang the same old drum. Its why in the unlikely event of another referendum Leave would win more comfortably.
No, you can't speak for all 52% of 'us'.
If that's how you interpreted it, fine, but don't push your interpretation onto millions of other people.
It was attitudes like his 5 years ago that got people like me campaigning to leave. Voters don't like being called silly, he can't help himself.
He wasn't calling voters silly; he was calling his Eurosceptic colleagues silly. His comments below look spot on to me:
"The idea that because we’re having a sort of rough old time, which as I say, in all the governments I have served in I can remember some rougher than this, the idea that you turn to a total irrelevance. It is in an irrelevance: you create turmoil on a great subject...at the moment we’re holding the confidence of the markets, you’d throw absolute confusion over our continued involvement in the European Union,” he said.
"I cannot think of anything sillier to do than hold a referendum. I’m not keen on referendums, I see no case for this referendum.”
A vote would not settle Britain’s relationship with the EU, he said.
“It would settle nothing; particularly it would settle nothing with the frenzied eurosceptics, who keep believing that European bogeys are under the bed any time we get into any problems.”
“If you ask the public what are their priorities at this difficult time, what would they like to see us turn our attention to for three weeks and campaign about, the idea that they’re all demanding a referendum on the European Union would be regarded as ridiculous; it’d be out of sight as a public demand, as a priority,” he said.
“It’s the demand of a few right-wing journalists and a few extreme nationalist politicians.”
Well 52% of us interpreted that as him calling us extreme right wingers, read the last line. We resent it and voted accordingly, yet he continues to bang the same old drum. Its why in the unlikely event of another referendum Leave would win more comfortably.
No, you can't speak for all 52% of 'us'.
If that's how you interpreted it, fine, but don't push your interpretation onto millions of other people.
That's a fair point, but recent elections home and abroad show what happens when you take voters for granted. If you read Clarke above he sums that up perfectly.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
"Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well"
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
Just the "mood music" we're hearing.
I think there's already quite a lot of common ground.
I think rcs had some quite positive feedback on the previous thread.
Ah yes, just checked that out... And is rcs in a good position to know?
(Sounds like I'm being sarcastic here but it's a genuine question - I'd much rather we weren't coming out but, given we are, I really want it to go a well as it can.)
It isn't clear whether what Nick describes is actually objective information about the progress of the campaign, or simply the enthusiastic zeal and messianic hope of the converted? It is quite possible to be enthusiastically hopeful and go down to crashing defeat.
That's certainly true, and it's what I thought was happening until mid-campaign. But there are two factors that made it different.
First, the presence of a ground campaign vs the absence of one does make a difference - it became gradually obvious (lack of posters, few and low-key leaflets, little street presence) that the Tories were taking their marginals for granted, and many people didn't like that. As Fox observes, there are simply a lot of Labour activists now, and it's therefore possible to have an active presence in far more places. Conversely, there were several reports of Tory MPs in marginals spending most of the day in neighbouring target seats - in Broxtowe, the Tories were positively boasting of it.
Second, Momentum was deploying techniques used in the Sanders campaign which were relatively new. They hoped they'd work but didn't really know; however, the mainstream party operation was barely aware it was happening.
Ok - except
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Voluntary shares on social media have ten times the impact of paid adverts, as they carry the endorsement of a friend. Momentum got this right, the Canary got this correct.
It isn't clear whether what Nick describes is actually objective information about the progress of the campaign, or simply the enthusiastic zeal and messianic hope of the converted? It is quite possible to be enthusiastically hopeful and go down to crashing defeat.
That's certainly true, and it's what I thought was happening until mid-campaign. But there are two factors that made it different.
First, the presence of a ground campaign vs the absence of one does make a difference - it became gradually obvious (lack of posters, few and low-key leaflets, little street presence) that the Tories were taking their marginals for granted, and many people didn't like that. As Fox observes, there are simply a lot of Labour activists now, and it's therefore possible to have an active presence in far more places. Conversely, there were several reports of Tory MPs in marginals spending most of the day in neighbouring target seats - in Broxtowe, the Tories were positively boasting of it.
Second, Momentum was deploying techniques used in the Sanders campaign which were relatively new. They hoped they'd work but didn't really know; however, the mainstream party operation was barely aware it was happening.
Ok - except
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
All the anecdotal evidence is that the Labour leadership - including the parts with close ties to Momentum - were as surprised by the exit poll as everyone else. Almost nobody was expecting the result we got.
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Voluntary shares on social media have ten times the impact of paid adverts, as they carry the endorsement of a friend. Momentum got this right, the Canary got this correct.
In the UK alt.left >> alt.right, and on the rise.
And meanwhile the truth dies.
Still, it's good that you support fake news and lies as long as they're on your side, eh?
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Voluntary shares on social media have ten times the impact of paid adverts, as they carry the endorsement of a friend. Momentum got this right, the Canary got this correct.
In the UK alt.left >> alt.right, and on the rise.
And meanwhile the truth dies.
Still, it's good that you support fake news and lies as long as they're on your side, eh?
Not my side! I am a LibDem, despite my disappointment at Cable not being opposed. Just making an observation.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277
I fear we may have seen the end of deficit reduction for now which is deeply troubling as we are already borrowing at a heightened level and the economic future for the next few years is uncertain. It is noteworthy that a major factor in the increase was an increased cost of borrowing on inflation linked gilts.
To have a situation where the Labour vote promising huge increases in public spending (eg abolishing tuition fees) increased by 10% at the election shows the price paid for failing to be candid with people about where we are and where we need to get to. In an election campaign littered with serious mistakes side-lining Hammond surely has to be right up there. Turning Osborne and his track record in this area into a non person non topic was not too smart either.
All of this makes me wonder how many general lessons can be learnt from the 2017 polling fiasco. The premise that campaigns don't have much impact is based on the assumption that they are marginally competent. The inept steps taken by the Tories meant that the adjustments which the pollsters made in good faith to reflect greater tendency to vote etc were nullified by a campaign almost designed to switch off or demotivate their natural supporters.
It is hard to believe that these mistakes will ever be repeated to such an extent and it may well be that reliance on the raw data creates the next lot of mistakes in the opposite direction once again as underlying patterns distorted by incompetence reassert themselves.
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Voluntary shares on social media have ten times the impact of paid adverts, as they carry the endorsement of a friend. Momentum got this right, the Canary got this correct.
In the UK alt.left >> alt.right, and on the rise.
And meanwhile the truth dies.
Still, it's good that you support fake news and lies as long as they're on your side, eh?
What fake news and lies? (And isn't the good doctor a LibDem anyway?)
In any case, all this talk of newness, alt.right and Sanders misses that what Labour and Momentum actually did was adopt these techniques (of sharing videos to targeted supporters via social media) from the Conservatives' GE2015 campaign.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
"Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well"
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
Just the "mood music" we're hearing.
I think there's already quite a lot of common ground.
I think rcs had some quite positive feedback on the previous thread.
Ah yes, just checked that out... And is rcs in a good position to know?
(Sounds like I'm being sarcastic here but it's a genuine question - I'd much rather we weren't coming out but, given we are, I really want it to go a well as it can.)
Due to his job/position and contacts I look for the feedback from the circles he moves in much more than just about anyone else on here. And also for the level-headedness of his dry analysis.
I enjoy the banter and banging of heads on here as much as the next troll but if I was to choose a single sensible point of reference on PB for this particular topic I would pick rcs.
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Voluntary shares on social media have ten times the impact of paid adverts, as they carry the endorsement of a friend. Momentum got this right, the Canary got this correct.
In the UK alt.left >> alt.right, and on the rise.
And meanwhile the truth dies.
Still, it's good that you support fake news and lies as long as they're on your side, eh?
Not my side! I am a LibDem, despite my disappointment at Cable not being opposed. Just making an observation.
You don't particularly come across as a Lib Dem.
Especially as it also means that you and I are on the same side atm.
I'll reply as Morris does, as you've slipped all the thread comments in your earlier reply.
There is nothing incompatible with campaigning for votes from unconventional sources whilst measuring progress in a conventional way.
Firstly, the parties have thousands of activists devoting their evenings to pounding the doorsteps, and it is natural and inevitable that the feedback they are getting determines the party view of how things are going. My own seat's Labour MP actually won by 10,000 yet both he and a few of his canvassers I spoke to during the campaign were pessimistic. Secondly, how exactly were they to measure success unconventionally? As I said, the feedback you get from online campaigning is mostly a lot of noise from a small unrepresentative number of recipients.
By using the people's army that they had assembled who, as Nick Palmer points out, were operating independently and effectively. One lesson Labour evidently need to learn is to be a bit more joined up.
Perhaps one lesson is not to concentrate so much on the marginals. When you have enough troops fight everywhere.
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
I still think the air war matters a lot more. As usual, in Woking we had absolutely nothing (apart from a load of Lib Dem leaflets) in the way of campaigning. And Labour still achieved a 5% swing.
Voluntary shares on social media have ten times the impact of paid adverts, as they carry the endorsement of a friend. Momentum got this right, the Canary got this correct.
In the UK alt.left >> alt.right, and on the rise.
And meanwhile the truth dies.
Still, it's good that you support fake news and lies as long as they're on your side, eh?
What fake news and lies? (And isn't the good doctor a LibDem anyway?)
In any case, all this talk of newness, alt.right and Sanders misses that what Labour and Momentum actually did was adopt these techniques (of sharing videos to targeted supporters via social media) from the Conservatives' GE2015 campaign.
There was some fairly nasty stuff shared by Labour-supporting friends. ISTR it was discussed at the time. I doubt some of it came from Labour hq.
It's also fairly different to what the Conservatives did in GE2015.
Just like so many of their promises on employee numbers and efficiency savings, never comes to anything.
The fact that thousands of poor people get a criminal record for failing to pay their licence fee to fund this sort of extravagance is really unsustainable. The BBC in its current form is an anachronism and needs to be dismantled.
There was some fairly nasty stuff shared by Labour-supporting friends. ISTR it was discussed at the time. I doubt some of it came from Labour hq.
It's also fairly different to what the Conservatives did in GE2015.
If you haven't seen the constant lies on twitter and facebook, you either billy no mates or you are deliberately spinning to play down the level of dishonesty out there.
There was some fairly nasty stuff shared by Labour-supporting friends. ISTR it was discussed at the time. I doubt some of it came from Labour hq.
It's also fairly different to what the Conservatives did in GE2015.
If you haven't seen the constant lies on twitter and facebook, you either billy no mates or you are deliberately spinning to play down the level of dishonesty out there.
I do not use Twitter or Facebook and keep it civil, there's a good chap.
Ironically, the issues with political disenchantment and the political class losing too much touch with the public (the producers being too detached from the consumers) was correctly diagnosed by the Conservatives more than a third of a century below; it's a specific issue in a general problem which they saw, diagnosed, and endeavoured to treat.
Except they fell prey to the dangers that they saw in others and could not see in themselves.
To ensure linkage between what the consumer wants and the producer produces and push up standard, you need the feedback method introduced by disciplined pluralism - from real choice and competition. This is invariably resisted fiercely by any producers in monopolistic or oligopolistic positions - who want competition and choice to be reduced or erased in order to ensure their own market share, and when they succeed in this, they fall prey to producer capture, even when they intend not to. All of which is why the nationalised industries - monopolistic organisations falling prey to producer capture - were ruthlessly dealt with to increase choice and competition (and make more responsive to the consumers) throughout.
The disproportionate electoral system we have was introduced deliberately to preserve the monopolistic/oligopolistic situation, especially for the Conservatives, and to minimise any real choice or competition. Which is why we have a situation where the people feel unrepresented, the political class are detached and flailing, respect for democratic institutions is low, democratic participation is low - and the producers in the monopolistic position (Conservatives and Labour, who hold near-monopoly power on being the Governing Class, simply in two factions) resist fiercely any attempt to increase choice and competition by making outcomes more proportional to votes.
It's a lovely example of what producer capture can result in when the producer has the power over the rules under which it operates. And of hypocrisy, of course.
There was some fairly nasty stuff shared by Labour-supporting friends. ISTR it was discussed at the time. I doubt some of it came from Labour hq.
It's also fairly different to what the Conservatives did in GE2015.
If you haven't seen the constant lies on twitter and facebook, you either billy no mates or you are deliberately spinning to play down the level of dishonesty out there.
I do not use Twitter or Facebook and keep it civil, there's a good chap.
So you are billy no mates then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
It isn't clear whether what Nick describes is actually objective information about the progress of the campaign, or simply the enthusiastic zeal and messianic hope of the converted? It is quite possible to be enthusiastically hopeful and go down to crashing defeat.
That's certainly true, and it's what I thought was happening until mid-campaign. But there are two factors that made it different.
First, the presence of a ground campaign vs the absence of one does make a difference - it became gradually obvious (lack of posters, few and low-key leaflets, little street presence) that the Tories were taking their marginals for granted, and many people didn't like that. As Fox observes, there are simply a lot of Labour activists now, and it's therefore possible to have an active presence in far more places. Conversely, there were several reports of Tory MPs in marginals spending most of the day in neighbouring target seats - in Broxtowe, the Tories were positively boasting of it.
Second, Momentum was deploying techniques used in the Sanders campaign which were relatively new. They hoped they'd work but didn't really know; however, the mainstream party operation was barely aware it was happening.
Ok - except
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin; - the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
All the anecdotal evidence is that the Labour leadership - including the parts with close ties to Momentum - were as surprised by the exit poll as everyone else. Almost nobody was expecting the result we got.
The mood music from Labour in the last week was that they expected to lose seats (even if fewer than they expected at the outset).
And, if BMG had been correct, they would have lost seats.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
More seriously, didn't a lot of this company malarkey come from the John Birt era under both Thatcher and Blair when the BBC was supposed to be refashioned as a commissioning company not a producer?
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
The borrowing numbers for 2016/2017 were really very good indeed, though.
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....
Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
The borrowing numbers for 2016/2017 were really very good indeed, though.
Yes, but the progress made is going to go into reverse now, because of the combination of weak government, inflation pressure, Brexit uncertainty, and Brexit costs.
One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277
I fear we may have seen the end of deficit reduction for now which is deeply troubling as we are already borrowing at a heightened level and the economic future for the next few years is uncertain. It is noteworthy that a major factor in the increase was an increased cost of borrowing on inflation linked gilts. s.
This is another consequence of Brexit. Politicians have promoted a course of action that even the most ardent of Leavers admit will have negative economic consequences. It's not hard to see how the public has concluded that restraint on spending is no longer needed if we can indulge ourselves with Brexit.
Comments
One thing the PB Tories got wrong was to deride them as clicktivists. They got out there in numbers, and also for people like Kendall or Flint, not just the hard left.
Labour membership is now 4 times Tory, and younger, fitter, and eager for a rematch.
The question is whether the Tories can deliver on May's 'JAM' agenda to consolidate this trend or, more likely, the combined effect of a weak, divided DUP-propped up government re-toxifying the Tories and the chaos of Brexit will put this trend into reverse?
https://twitter.com/MetroUK/status/888309238648512512
Leek East (Staffordshire Moorlands) result:
LAB: 45.0% (+25.6)
CON: 28.9% (+1.1)
IND: 19.5% (+19.5)
LDEM: 6.6% (+0.7)
There are moves afoot to force them to make artificial noise to alert those nearby. We'll have the equivalent of personalised ring-tones for cars. I might get my possible future electric driverless BMW to play "Ride of the Valkyries" as it ferries me around.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13651106/electric-car-noise-nhtsa-rule-blind-pedestrian-safety
Alston Moor (Eden) result:
LAB: 55.8% (+55.8)
CON: 34.7% (-10.7)
IND: 7.8% (+7.8)
GRN: 1.8% (+1.8)
Lab GAIN from LDem.
Campaigns, leadership and messaging all matter. I think the electorate is far less ideological than either side likes to think, and much more frustrated and transactional.
That means it's easier to both fall back, and to find a way back, and why the Tories/Labour being either "in" or "out" of power for 10-20 years each, off the back of definitive trends and swings either which way due to electoral cycles, is probably wrong for the future.
Anyway, I think we're a long way from this happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadway_noise
Horse's hooves might be a good idea.
It will revolutionise many things, including living patterns.
Public opinion of Theresa May:
Satisfied: 34% (-9)
Dissatisfied: 59% (+9)
Experience suggests that the benefits of progress will come with unforeseen downsides - just as the future of short working weeks and tons of leisure time painted by similar optimists at the dawn of the electronic age has turned into people tied 24/7 to our electronic devices, checking our work emails whilst we sit on the beach....
Last Saturday night, I slept in Charles de Gaulle's bed.
I thought you'd all like to know that.
Driverless cars aren't that far away from the mainstream now. I see that the US are currently legislating to make it easier to allow them on the roads.
As far as cities are concerned, the average car speed in the largest is usually well under 20mph.
http://www.satrakvehicletracking.co.uk/blog/uks-slowest-motorways-revealed-satrak/
With the advent of self-driving cars, pedestrian safety would effectively be a solved problem at such speed (and traffic flow would be a great deal less stop/start).
In any event, electric cars would massively reduce both noise and air pollution in cities.
At present, there are more Tories who don't like May than Labour voters who don't like Corbyn. That's relevant for turnout and support for a coup, but I wouldn't overrate it.
Actually it looks as though the negotiations have gone surprisingly well with Davis and Barnier already have quite a good rapport... much to the annoyance of Remainiacs...
I've just organised an evening at my club for a visiting tailor. An Indian bloke called Thai John. Bespoke suits, shirts. Very popular with the members.
For me the issue is tyre and air noise, not engine noise, plus just the sheer safety issue of cars coming past at speeds that could kill you if you happened to step out (as sadly happened to our old dog a few years back).
All of which is to say, whilst electric cars are no doubt a good thing for the environment, I really can't beleive they will make busy roads much more pleasant to live on.
(* I am thinking of building a bird box in the shape and colour of a speed camera and sticking it up in the front garden. Not an original idea but it might make a few people slow down!)
What makes you say that? I'm a remainer but given we are coing out, I hope the negitiations do go well. I can't see much evidence of that though sadly.
I think there's already quite a lot of common ground.
It was attitudes like his 5 years ago that got people like me campaigning to leave. Voters don't like being called silly, he can't help himself.
He's been spreading poison as the fifth column enemy within for years.
9/10 teams were opposed but because it's a safety issue the FIA can impose it.
"The idea that because we’re having a sort of rough old time, which as I say, in all the governments I have served in I can remember some rougher than this, the idea that you turn to a total irrelevance. It is in an irrelevance: you create turmoil on a great subject...at the moment we’re holding the confidence of the markets, you’d throw absolute confusion over our continued involvement in the European Union,” he said.
"I cannot think of anything sillier to do than hold a referendum. I’m not keen on referendums, I see no case for this referendum.”
A vote would not settle Britain’s relationship with the EU, he said.
“It would settle nothing; particularly it would settle nothing with the frenzied eurosceptics, who keep believing that European bogeys are under the bed any time we get into any problems.”
“If you ask the public what are their priorities at this difficult time, what would they like to see us turn our attention to for three weeks and campaign about, the idea that they’re all demanding a referendum on the European Union would be regarded as ridiculous; it’d be out of sight as a public demand, as a priority,” he said.
“It’s the demand of a few right-wing journalists and a few extreme nationalist politicians.”
First, the presence of a ground campaign vs the absence of one does make a difference - it became gradually obvious (lack of posters, few and low-key leaflets, little street presence) that the Tories were taking their marginals for granted, and many people didn't like that. As Fox observes, there are simply a lot of Labour activists now, and it's therefore possible to have an active presence in far more places. Conversely, there were several reports of Tory MPs in marginals spending most of the day in neighbouring target seats - in Broxtowe, the Tories were positively boasting of it.
Second, Momentum was deploying techniques used in the Sanders campaign which were relatively new. They hoped they'd work but didn't really know; however, the mainstream party operation was barely aware it was happening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/government-might-losing-brexit-spin-battle-triumphing-substance/
If that's how you interpreted it, fine, but don't push your interpretation onto millions of other people.
Can anyone think of uses for this technology? (/innocentface)
https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/07/this-expanding-worm-robot-is-your-new-fungible-phallic-friend/
Surprisingly, safe for work.
(Sounds like I'm being sarcastic here but it's a genuine question - I'd much rather we weren't coming out but, given we are, I really want it to go a well as it can.)
- the evidence for ground campaigns actually making a big difference is thin;
- the discussion was about accuracy of canvass returns and whether Labour might otherwise have known that things were going better. Your "they didn't really know" appears to confirm the original point?
It's part enough that the commonly used term for our departure is such an ugly portmanteau without inflicting new ones upon us.
In the UK alt.left >> alt.right, and on the rise.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/july2017
There is a greater preponderance of the elderly in rural areas.
Still, it's good that you support fake news and lies as long as they're on your side, eh?
I fear we may have seen the end of deficit reduction for now which is deeply troubling as we are already borrowing at a heightened level and the economic future for the next few years is uncertain. It is noteworthy that a major factor in the increase was an increased cost of borrowing on inflation linked gilts.
To have a situation where the Labour vote promising huge increases in public spending (eg abolishing tuition fees) increased by 10% at the election shows the price paid for failing to be candid with people about where we are and where we need to get to. In an election campaign littered with serious mistakes side-lining Hammond surely has to be right up there. Turning Osborne and his track record in this area into a non person non topic was not too smart either.
All of this makes me wonder how many general lessons can be learnt from the 2017 polling fiasco. The premise that campaigns don't have much impact is based on the assumption that they are marginally competent. The inept steps taken by the Tories meant that the adjustments which the pollsters made in good faith to reflect greater tendency to vote etc were nullified by a campaign almost designed to switch off or demotivate their natural supporters.
It is hard to believe that these mistakes will ever be repeated to such an extent and it may well be that reliance on the raw data creates the next lot of mistakes in the opposite direction once again as underlying patterns distorted by incompetence reassert themselves.
In any case, all this talk of newness, alt.right and Sanders misses that what Labour and Momentum actually did was adopt these techniques (of sharing videos to targeted supporters via social media) from the Conservatives' GE2015 campaign.
I enjoy the banter and banging of heads on here as much as the next troll but if I was to choose a single sensible point of reference on PB for this particular topic I would pick rcs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4716102/BBC-stars-dodging-income-tax.html
Just like so many of their promises on employee numbers and efficiency savings, never comes to anything.
Especially as it also means that you and I are on the same side atm.
It's also fairly different to what the Conservatives did in GE2015.
Except they fell prey to the dangers that they saw in others and could not see in themselves.
To ensure linkage between what the consumer wants and the producer produces and push up standard, you need the feedback method introduced by disciplined pluralism - from real choice and competition. This is invariably resisted fiercely by any producers in monopolistic or oligopolistic positions - who want competition and choice to be reduced or erased in order to ensure their own market share, and when they succeed in this, they fall prey to producer capture, even when they intend not to. All of which is why the nationalised industries - monopolistic organisations falling prey to producer capture - were ruthlessly dealt with to increase choice and competition (and make more responsive to the consumers) throughout.
The disproportionate electoral system we have was introduced deliberately to preserve the monopolistic/oligopolistic situation, especially for the Conservatives, and to minimise any real choice or competition. Which is why we have a situation where the people feel unrepresented, the political class are detached and flailing, respect for democratic institutions is low, democratic participation is low - and the producers in the monopolistic position (Conservatives and Labour, who hold near-monopoly power on being the Governing Class, simply in two factions) resist fiercely any attempt to increase choice and competition by making outcomes more proportional to votes.
It's a lovely example of what producer capture can result in when the producer has the power over the rules under which it operates. And of hypocrisy, of course.
Mrs J's birthday is coming up soon, and I want to get her a really nice present. As she's also into space, I thought I'd get her a space-themed present.
I asked her for hints about anything she might want in that area, and she reminded me that an ex of hers had got her name onto a CD on the New Horizons spacecraft, which is currently past Pluto and heading out to the Kuiper Belt.
How the F*** can I compete with that?
And, if BMG had been correct, they would have lost seats.
And: There is no suggestion that any of these firms was used to avoid paying all tax due.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4716102/BBC-stars-dodging-income-tax.html
More seriously, didn't a lot of this company malarkey come from the John Birt era under both Thatcher and Blair when the BBC was supposed to be refashioned as a commissioning company not a producer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40677650