I agree. Nothing has been sacrificed, nothing has been surrendered. We remain in control of our own destiny as a country. We are sovereign.
No we are not. Sorry but this just shows your lack of understanding. The fact that a slave could buy himself out of slavery did not make him any less a slave as long as he did not do so.
A slave could not walk away from his owner. We can walk away from the EU. It's our choice. No ifs and no buts. There were a fair few ifs and buts with a slave buying his freedom. We are not slaves.
And yet we are being told we cannot walk away without buying our freedom.
Apparently Hezza's just gone full frontal on Boris - near racist, extraordinary utterances, not fit to be PM.
Heseltine's comments are hardly consistent with a campaign oozing confidence. Signs of panic there perhaps?
Nigel Farage said if the margin of victory was small we'd need another referendum because there would be such a large body of people who didn't want to be in the EU! I don't know whether that shows confidence or that I've just misheard!
I wonder what the context was of his comments. No Referendum result can bind us forever - after all we have already had one!
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
So long as one appreciates the limitations of the models, it's hard to see a sensible alternative to models for guiding decision-making. What would you suggest? Guesswork? Prayer? Chicken entrails?
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs on models for export to the EU, while developing its own regs for both domestic and non-EU export markets = Freedom.
It was also the institutions that objected to Galileo's writings that the earth went around the Sun and not the Sun going around us. They also tried to silence him.
Would someone do some research before postings these old wives' tales.
Even Mr. Bilge knows it's known as the Copernican system, after a Polish monk whom nothing seems to have happened to.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs on models for export to the EU, while developing its own regs for both domestic and non-EU export markets = Freedom.
Not onerous on kettle manufacturers. Much.
The principle. Much
Without a kettle, how on earth do you make a hot toddy?
I'm afraid that you certainly don't come across as an expert in the field. From what I've read, climatologists have a very good idea of the main forcings and feedback effects, though of course uncertainty remains, in particular, regarding the effect of clouds.
Maybe you are not aware that the so-called hiatus is no more - temperatures over the last couple of years have totally eclipsed previous records. Of course the air temperature doesn't rise smoothly, and this is indeed because of heat sloshing in and out of the oceans. The slowdown seen during the 2000s is not statistically significant. At the moment, all eyes are on the Arctic ice extent, which is a current low and is threatening to set a new record this summer. See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Perhaps you could refer me to one or two of your papers. I'd be interested to read your arguments.
Sorry but I'm that posting you really do betray how little you know. No serious climatologist would ever consider using El Nino years as part if a trend. They really would get laughed out of the lab. It is the same reason AGW skeptics were attacked for using 1998 as the starting point for a trend. If that is the best you can do then you really are on dodgy ground.
You were the one who brought up the "pause" - the only way you can generate a pause is by deliberately choosing the El Nino year of 1998 as your stating point, and even that doesn't work any more, given that the temperatures of the current El Nino have far exceeded that one. As I said, the so-called hiatus isn't statistically significant.
Can I look at your papers? I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.
I agree. Nothing has been sacrificed, nothing has been surrendered. We remain in control of our own destiny as a country. We are sovereign.
No we are not. Sorry but this just shows your lack of understanding. The fact that a slave could buy himself out of slavery did not make him any less a slave as long as he did not do so.
A slave could not walk away from his owner. We can walk away from the EU. It's our choice. No ifs and no buts. There were a fair few ifs and buts with a slave buying his freedom. We are not slaves.
And yet we are being told we cannot walk away without buying our freedom.
Not sure I understand that. We are having a referendum and having given the two years' notice required can walk away if we vote for Brexit. We may choose, however, to negotiate an exit.
Apparently Hezza's just gone full frontal on Boris - near racist, extraordinary utterances, not fit to be PM.
Heseltine's comments are hardly consistent with a campaign oozing confidence. Signs of panic there perhaps?
Nigel Farage said if the margin of victory was small we'd need another referendum because there would be such a large body of people who didn't want to be in the EU! I don't know whether that shows confidence or that I've just misheard!
* which will be exacerbated if LVG now rests Lingard or Smalling ahead of the FA Cup Final having named them both as playing last sunday & thus ruining my PB Fantasy last chance for glory.
Apparently Hezza's just gone full frontal on Boris - near racist, extraordinary utterances, not fit to be PM.
Heseltine's comments are hardly consistent with a campaign oozing confidence. Signs of panic there perhaps?
Nigel Farage said if the margin of victory was small we'd need another referendum because there would be such a large body of people who didn't want to be in the EU! I don't know whether that shows confidence or that I've just misheard!
If Remain wins on a relatively low turnout I am not sure how Farage's comment works.
Thanks, Roger. I think the advertising industry is near irrelevant in politics. The best, most viral propaganda is now produced by amateurs.
As Red Adaire said "If you think it costs a lot hiring professionals wait till you see what it costs to hire amateurs"
There are two parts to producing an effective political ad. The brief and answering the brief. In political advertising I would think the brief is the most important. In normal advertising it's the other way round which is why the creatives make the big bucks. Amateurs making you smile on the net without a brief without research and without targetting are more often than not a complete waste of time.
Apart from a tiny handful of adverts - what political campaigns have made an impact? I think it's very telling that almost everyone cites the 80s/90s. It's eons ago.
Dumping Adam & Eve was surely more likely because they weren't doing the job. Which client changes horses if they're happy? I've never met one, nor done so myself.
I agree that's what it looks like but it would be strangely panicky after such a short time. Neither campaign looks particularly well organized but unless we know who exactly the client is it's difficult to know why Adam and Eve haven't been able to get a grip. No agency can work with a disorganized committee
As for campaigns....Miliband in Salmond's pocket was 2015
It was also the institutions that objected to Galileo's writings that the earth went around the Sun and not the Sun going around us. They also tried to silence him.
Would someone do some research before postings these old wives' tales.
Even Mr. Bilge knows it's known as the Copernican system, after a Polish monk whom nothing seems to have happened to.
I did not say that Galileo came up with the idea of heliocentrism, only that institutions acted against him for supporting the idea. "By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism.[64] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to Castelli.[65] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his Copernican and biblical ideas." wikipedia
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
So long as one appreciates the limitations of the models, it's hard to see a sensible alternative to models for guiding decision-making. What would you suggest? Guesswork? Prayer? Chicken entrails?
The understanding of the principles at work that comes from striving to get a successful predictive model, as opposed to the faulty predictions of the model.
The key is in your first sentence. Alas, most of the politicians, and some of the most prominent scientists-turned-salesmen-turned-politicians who make up the 'consensus' either unwittingly or knowingly disregard it.
PS In essence, I'd proposed greater emphasis on qualitative rather than quantitative approaches.
The beauty of over-reliance on the global warming modeling is that it relieves the politician of any responsibility for his/her actions or decision making. If the model predictions turn out to be false, it's not the pol's fault - blame the model. But if the pol makes their own decisions then there is nowhere else to turn for blame.
It's akin to a failing business calling in a consultant and slavishly following recommendations - in the event of failure it can only be the consultant's fault.
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
So long as one appreciates the limitations of the models, it's hard to see a sensible alternative to models for guiding decision-making. What would you suggest? Guesswork? Prayer? Chicken entrails?
Observation and experimentation. Proper science.
You really don't sound like a scientist. Of course you need observation and experimentation, but without some sort of theoretical framework (i.e. a model) to explain your observations, they are just numbers. Virtually all of science and engineering involves modelling nowadays.
I'm not sure that the Hillary-Trump polling is very meaningful at the moment, given that Sanders hasn't yet dropped out.
Right, I've decided to take some of my Trump nom moneyu and back him on the Presidential market with the intent of trading out after the Republican Convention.
I think you ahv this spot on. Sanders supoprters are currently, what's that phrase, virtue signalling with their non-support of hillary in national Clinton/Trump polls.
Once the Dem Nom is settled and Trump announces he wants to put Scalia's reanimated corpse on the bench the polls will swing back to Hillary. But not before they narrow considerably first.
I'm afraid that you certainly don't come across as an expert in the field. From what I've read, climatologists have a very good idea of the main forcings and feedback effects, though of course uncertainty remains, in particular, regarding the effect of clouds.
Maybe you are not aware that the so-called hiatus is no more - temperatures over the last couple of years have totally eclipsed previous records. Of course the air temperature doesn't rise smoothly, and this is indeed because of heat sloshing in and out of the oceans. The slowdown seen during the 2000s is not statistically significant. At the moment, all eyes are on the Arctic ice extent, which is a current low and is threatening to set a new record this summer. See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Perhaps you could refer me to one or two of your papers. I'd be interested to read your arguments.
Sorry but I'm that posting you really do betray how little you know. No serious climatologist would ever consider using El Nino years as part if a trend. They really would get laughed out of the lab. It is the same reason AGW skeptics were attacked for using 1998 as the starting point for a trend. If that is the best you can do then you really are on dodgy ground.
You were the one who brought up the "pause" - the only way you can generate a pause is by deliberately choosing the El Nino year of 1998 as your stating point, and even that doesn't work any more, given that the temperatures of the current El Nino have far exceeded that one. As I said, the so-called hiatus isn't statistically significant.
Can I look at your papers? I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.
Absolutely not true. The pause exists from post 1999/2000 well after the El Nino event. It is accepted by all but the most politically active climate scientists.
As I said and have always made clear on here my work is private and public sector geology and archaeology consultancy - development, quarrying, site investigation, mitigation work, oil and gas and advising archaeology units. Pure research doesn't pay enough.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs on models for export to the EU, while developing its own regs for both domestic and non-EU export markets = Freedom.
Not onerous on kettle manufacturers. Much.
The principle. Much
Without a kettle, how on earth do you make a hot toddy?
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
So long as one appreciates the limitations of the models, it's hard to see a sensible alternative to models for guiding decision-making. What would you suggest? Guesswork? Prayer? Chicken entrails?
Observation and experimentation. Proper science.
You really don't sound like a scientist. Of course you need observation and experimentation, but without some sort of theoretical framework (i.e. a model) to explain your observations, they are just numbers. Virtually all of science and engineering involves modelling nowadays.
You asked how one verify the models. More modelling is not the answer.
Thanks, Roger. I think the advertising industry is near irrelevant in politics. The best, most viral propaganda is now produced by amateurs.
As Red Adaire said "If you think it costs a lot hiring professionals wait till you see what it costs to hire amateurs"
There are two parts to producing an effective political ad. The brief and answering the brief. In political advertising I would think the brief is the most important. In normal advertising it's the other way round which is why the creatives make the big bucks. Amateurs making you smile on the net without a brief without research and without targetting are more often than not a complete waste of time.
Apart from a tiny handful of adverts - what political campaigns have made an impact? I think it's very telling that almost everyone cites the 80s/90s. It's eons ago.
Dumping Adam & Eve was surely more likely because they weren't doing the job. Which client changes horses if they're happy? I've never met one, nor done so myself.
I agree that's what it looks like but it would be strangely panicky after such a short time. Neither campaign looks particularly well organized but unless we know who exactly the client is it's difficult to know why Adam and Eve haven't been able to get a grip. No agency can work with a disorganized committee
LEAVE's organisation has been severly hampered by having rivals for the designation. But what is REMAIN/BSE's excuse? We have seen this first 17+ weeks dominated by Govt/Cameron/Osborne. The REMAIN committee on which they do not sit, appears to be taking a back seat.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
It would be ironic if Clinton has more of a problem uniting her party behind her than Trump though. The bitterness being created by the Democratic race shouldn't be underestimated.
Absolutely no bitterness in the Republican process of course.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
So long as one appreciates the limitations of the models, it's hard to see a sensible alternative to models for guiding decision-making. What would you suggest? Guesswork? Prayer? Chicken entrails?
Observation and experimentation. Proper science.
You really don't sound like a scientist. Of course you need observation and experimentation, but without some sort of theoretical framework (i.e. a model) to explain your observations, they are just numbers. Virtually all of science and engineering involves modelling nowadays.
You asked how one verify the models. More modelling is not the answer.
Circular arguments are quite common - Sunday School classes use the bible to prove the bible all the time.
Climate change seems to partially qualify as a religion these days given the blind acceptance.
I have just listened to Heseltine' extraordinary attack on Boris on R4. What a deeply unpleasant man Heseltine is. How is "playing the man" a fit and proper way for a campaign to behave? Brutal unpleasant personal attacks like this are very damaging for the Conservative party. Of course it is a sign of how desperate some in the REMAIN camp are getting.
Thanks, Roger. I think the advertising industry is near irrelevant in politics. The best, most viral propaganda is now produced by amateurs.
As Red Adaire said "If you think it costs a lot hiring professionals wait till you see what it costs to hire amateurs"
There are two parts to producing an effective political ad. The brief and answering the brief. In political advertising I would think the brief is the most important. In normal advertising it's the other way round which is why the creatives make the big bucks. Amateurs making you smile on the net without a brief without research and without targetting are more often than not a complete waste of time.
Apart from a tiny handful of adverts - what political campaigns have made an impact? I think it's very telling that almost everyone cites the 80s/90s. It's eons ago.
Dumping Adam & Eve was surely more likely because they weren't doing the job. Which client changes horses if they're happy? I've never met one, nor done so myself.
I agree that's what it looks like but it would be strangely panicky after such a short time. Neither campaign looks particularly well organized but unless we know who exactly the client is it's difficult to know why Adam and Eve haven't been able to get a grip. No agency can work with a disorganized committee
LEAVE's organisation has been severly hampered by having rivals for the designation. But what is REMAIN/BSE's excuse? We have seen this first 17+ weeks dominated by Govt/Cameron/Osborne. The REMAIN committee on which they do not sit, appears to be taking a back seat.
Remain had a huge advantage because Cameron fired the starting gun, and Leave Official weren't designated until April 13th. Remain started on February 24th.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
It would be ironic if Clinton has more of a problem uniting her party behind her than Trump though. The bitterness being created by the Democratic race shouldn't be underestimated.
Absolutely no bitterness in the Republican process of course.
That is true. But some polls have shown up to 35% of Bernie supporters being prepared to vote Trump. I have seen nothing, apart from a few Establishment cry-babies, to indicate anything of that scale of disaffected Republicans being prepared to vote for Hillary over Trump.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
It would be ironic if Clinton has more of a problem uniting her party behind her than Trump though. The bitterness being created by the Democratic race shouldn't be underestimated.
Absolutely no bitterness in the Republican process of course.
That is true. But some polls have shown up to 35% of Bernie supporters being prepared to vote Trump. I have seen nothing, apart from a few Establishment cry-babies, to indicate anything of that scale of disaffected Republicans being prepared to vote for Hillary over Trump.
Open Primary exit polling isn't a great indicator in my view.
Thanks, Roger. I think the advertising industry is near irrelevant in politics. The best, most viral propaganda is now produced by amateurs.
As Red Adaire said "If you think it costs a lot hiring professionals wait till you see what it costs to hire amateurs"
There are two parts to producing an effective political ad. The brief and answering the brief. In political advertising I would think the brief is the most important. In normal advertising it's the other way round which is why the creatives make the big bucks. Amateurs making you smile on the net without a brief without research and without targetting are more often than not a complete waste of time.
Apart from a tiny handful of adverts - what political campaigns have made an impact? I think it's very telling that almost everyone cites the 80s/90s. It's eons ago.
Dumping Adam & Eve was surely more likely because they weren't doing the job. Which client changes horses if they're happy? I've never met one, nor done so myself.
I agree that's what it looks like but it would be strangely panicky after such a short time. Neither campaign looks particularly well organized but unless we know who exactly the client is it's difficult to know why Adam and Eve haven't been able to get a grip. No agency can work with a disorganized committee
LEAVE's organisation has been severly hampered by having rivals for the designation. But what is REMAIN/BSE's excuse? We have seen this first 17+ weeks dominated by Govt/Cameron/Osborne. The REMAIN committee on which they do not sit, appears to be taking a back seat.
Remain had a huge advantage because Cameron fired the starting gun, and Leave Official weren't designated until April 13th. Remain started on February 24th.
Yes and a 20,000 survey from a highly reputable and trusted source says that LEAVE are slightly ahead. Even though REMAIN has as its head of strategy the man who ran the Lib Dems 2015 GE campaign. A RHINO chap with Osborne seemingly taking most decisions.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
It would be ironic if Clinton has more of a problem uniting her party behind her than Trump though. The bitterness being created by the Democratic race shouldn't be underestimated.
Absolutely no bitterness in the Republican process of course.
That is true. But some polls have shown up to 35% of Bernie supporters being prepared to vote Trump. I have seen nothing, apart from a few Establishment cry-babies, to indicate anything of that scale of disaffected Republicans being prepared to vote for Hillary over Trump.
The last polls I saw a week ago suggested 87% Dems will support Hillary, 83% for Trump from GOP. The GOP cry babies [love that] are noisy and small. WVir Dems were saying 40% of Bernies for Trump. I gather they're not the norm.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
It would be ironic if Clinton has more of a problem uniting her party behind her than Trump though. The bitterness being created by the Democratic race shouldn't be underestimated.
Absolutely no bitterness in the Republican process of course.
That is true. But some polls have shown up to 35% of Bernie supporters being prepared to vote Trump. I have seen nothing, apart from a few Establishment cry-babies, to indicate anything of that scale of disaffected Republicans being prepared to vote for Hillary over Trump.
Open Primary exit polling isn't a great indicator in my view.
It has been a constant theme in the last few primaries. I suspect you are letting your bias affect your judgment, dismissing it so summarily. It may indeed turn out to be incorrect but there is as yet nothing to gainsay it. There is an intense dislike of Clinton among a sizeable group of Sanders supporters.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
It would be ironic if Clinton has more of a problem uniting her party behind her than Trump though. The bitterness being created by the Democratic race shouldn't be underestimated.
Absolutely no bitterness in the Republican process of course.
That is true. But some polls have shown up to 35% of Bernie supporters being prepared to vote Trump. I have seen nothing, apart from a few Establishment cry-babies, to indicate anything of that scale of disaffected Republicans being prepared to vote for Hillary over Trump.
Open Primary exit polling isn't a great indicator in my view.
It has been a constant theme in the last few primaries. I suspect you are letting your bias affect your judgment, dismissing it so summarily. It may indeed turn out to be incorrect but there is as yet nothing to gainsay it. There is an intense dislike of Clinton among a sizeable group of Sanders supporters.
There absolutely is, which is why they are voting for Sanders. Lots of Republican primary voters hated Trump which is why they voted for the other guys.
But once the Primary process was over they have obediently rowed in behind Trump. The same will happen once the Dem primary process is over.
Until the Dem primary is over the national polls will be skewed.
I have just listened to Heseltine' extraordinary attack on Boris on R4. What a deeply unpleasant man Heseltine is. How is "playing the man" a fit and proper way for a campaign to behave? Brutal unpleasant personal attacks like this are very damaging for the Conservative party. Of course it is a sign of how desperate some in the REMAIN camp are getting.
Yeah. After all Leave never play the man or get involved with abuse. Models of gracious behaviour.
I have just listened to Heseltine' extraordinary attack on Boris on R4. What a deeply unpleasant man Heseltine is. How is "playing the man" a fit and proper way for a campaign to behave? Brutal unpleasant personal attacks like this are very damaging for the Conservative party. Of course it is a sign of how desperate some in the REMAIN camp are getting.
Yeah. After all Leave never play the man or get involved with abuse. Models of gracious behaviour.
I believe it all kicked off several years back with fruit cakes loonies and racists
Comments
Even Mr. Bilge knows it's known as the Copernican system, after a Polish monk whom nothing seems to have happened to.
Can I look at your papers? I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/may/17/ed-miliband-doncaster-40th-most-powerful-person
Hot poker ....
bollocks*
* which will be exacerbated if LVG now rests Lingard or Smalling ahead of the FA Cup Final having named them both as playing last sunday & thus ruining my PB Fantasy last chance for glory.
As for campaigns....Miliband in Salmond's pocket was 2015
"By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism.[64] Lorini specifically cited Galileo's letter to Castelli.[65] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his Copernican and biblical ideas." wikipedia
It's akin to a failing business calling in a consultant and slavishly following recommendations - in the event of failure it can only be the consultant's fault.
NEW NON-EUREF THREAD
I think you ahv this spot on. Sanders supoprters are currently, what's that phrase, virtue signalling with their non-support of hillary in national Clinton/Trump polls.
Once the Dem Nom is settled and Trump announces he wants to put Scalia's reanimated corpse on the bench the polls will swing back to Hillary. But not before they narrow considerably first.
Funny it has suddenly become salient to them now.
I wonder why?
As I said and have always made clear on here my work is private and public sector geology and archaeology consultancy - development, quarrying, site investigation, mitigation work, oil and gas and advising archaeology units. Pure research doesn't pay enough.
Climate change seems to partially qualify as a religion these days given the blind acceptance.
But once the Primary process was over they have obediently rowed in behind Trump. The same will happen once the Dem primary process is over.
Until the Dem primary is over the national polls will be skewed.