"The man in the street is going to be bombarded with propaganda backed by the Prime Minister and countless business leaders claiming all manner of disaster if we leave the EU
90% or more of that can be nullified in one stroke if we make it clear the preferred option after leaving is the EEA. But Farage will not do that and so becomes a liability rather than an asset.
UKIP won 3.8 million votes at the GE. Show me where the other 10 to 15 million are going to come from under Nigel plans and I might start taking him seriously."
This is in answer to @Philip_Thompson as well who said "UKIP only got 12%" and we need 51%
For the last 5 years or so it is UKIP, fronted by Farage, that have been shouting the loudest about the need to leave the EU. Citing UKIPs 12% election score as the ceiling that a Farage led (not that I am suggesting it should be) campaign is ludicrous, as the Polling for LEAVE has been in the 40%s...
So not as offputting as people like to think.
I accept that the final push may need to be from someone more mainstream, but please don't mix up UKIPs vote with the LEAVE score... I repeat, while Farage has been the face of LEAVE, LEAVE has been polling in the 40s (after DKs removed)
Actually during the period you talk about support for Leave has dropped from a high of 54% in early 2011 to 27% in June 2015. Is that all thanks to Farage?
No doubt June 2015 was thanks to Farage failing to win a seat.. the LEAVErs felt like all was lost!
Joke, joke
I dont particularly want to row over this, I am saying in as nice a way as I can manage on the internet, that I feel your reasons for wanting to Leave the EU wouldn't be an easy sell to the man on the street.. theyre not interested
You asked where the extra votes above and beyond UKIPS election score of 12% were going to come from... my simple answer is that LEAVE has been polling way way above 12% even with Farage as the face of it, even at your cherry picked lowest point
Not cherry picked. It has often been noted on here that there is an inverse relationship between UKIP's popularity and the desire to leave the EU. The better UKIP does in the polls, the fewer people want to leave the the EU.
You work it out
I refer you to October and November last year when UKIP won Clacton and Rochester and scored their highest ever VI rating
Zoe Williams' remarks on spitting and egging are even worse in context. She later justifies that it's ok because it would only happen against the Tories!
I am amazed that no-one in the media has tried to trap Cameron on his "Labour are a threat to national security" and selective quoting of the Osama Bin Laden comment.
They seem like two incredibly easy gotcha interview questions.
If it's that easy I'm surprised the Corbynista tribe haven't latched on to it. Unless it doesn't fit in with JC's kinda politics.
It's just registered that you may be the Corbynista tribe man!
Thoughts on those by-election results 1 Tories are the only party that stood everywhere. Was Labour not standing in Aird & Loch Ness a) a unionist conspiracy or b) a sign of Labour's weakness in some parts of Scotland? 2 Yes I know Aird & Loch Ness was an STV election; and yes Yellow Guard is right that people don't get STV.. Nevertheless, the Lib Dems won it. Mr Kelly wrote about it as if the SNP had won, that was the problem. 3 The Lib Dems held one, lost one, gained one, all narrowly. In the other two elections they (ok then, for transparency, "we") came second with massively increased vote share. Signs of a revival?
I think you don't understand how STV works.
If you apply yesterday's result to what could happen in 2017, that additional 5% brings the SNP much closer to being able to return two candidates in 2017 while the Liberals will be unable to get First Preferences from the Independents to beat the SNP for the fourth seat.
In effect in 2017 the Liberals will be reliant on transfers from the Independents (especially the surplus over quota) and the SNP will expect direct transfers from their first candidates surplus over quota to significantly help their climb towards gaining the 4th seat.
In terms of the predictive usefulness of the poll, all that matters really is how much the SNP vote rose. It would be the correct headline for any article.
Thoughts on those by-election results 1 Tories are the only party that stood everywhere. Was Labour not standing in Aird & Loch Ness a) a unionist conspiracy or b) a sign of Labour's weakness in some parts of Scotland? 2 Yes I know Aird & Loch Ness was an STV election; and yes Yellow Guard is right that people don't get STV.. Nevertheless, the Lib Dems won it. Mr Kelly wrote about it as if the SNP had won, that was the problem. 3 The Lib Dems held one, lost one, gained one, all narrowly. In the other two elections they (ok then, for transparency, "we") came second with massively increased vote share. Signs of a revival?
I think you don't understand how STV works.
If you apply yesterday's result to what could happen in 2017, that additional 5% brings the SNP much closer to being able to return two candidates in 2017 while the Liberals will be unable to get First Preferences from the Independents to beat the SNP for the fourth seat.
In effect in 2017 the Liberals will be reliant on transfers from the Independents (especially the surplus over quota) and the SNP will expect direct transfers from their first candidates surplus over quota to significantly help their climb towards gaining the 4th seat.
In terms of the predictive usefulness of the poll, all that matters really is how much the SNP vote rose. It would be the correct headline for any article.
I wish I had your relentless positivity. Seems to be a trait amongs the Nats.
Tory tactical voting for the LDs in Aird and Loch Ness is encouraging for any Edinburgh West by election
Not a very good idea relying on the result of any seat in the rural Highlands and Islands (where the prevalence of Independents, local issues and of course the complicating factor of STV make it very difficult to infer anything accurately).
I remember John McEnroe saying that you can't lose to the Brad Gilbert's of this world in the aftermath of suffering that humiliating fate. He soon thereafter retired from competitive tennis. If the SNP is losing to the LDs, then the SNP is in big trouble.
Again you don't get STV.
The Liberals won a seat where 52% of the 2012 electorate did not have a candidate to vote for. What is important - from the SNPs point of view - is what happened to their vote, has it risen or fallen and how close does it take them towards beating the Liberals in 2017 for the 4th seat.
Clearly their vote rose. Clearly it is still some way short of guaranteeing them two seats on Surplus Transfers. It is probably not enough to beat the Liberals to the 4th seat but it will be much closer than in 2012.
Thoughts on those by-election results 1 Tories are the only party that stood everywhere. Was Labour not standing in Aird & Loch Ness a) a unionist conspiracy or b) a sign of Labour's weakness in some parts of Scotland? 2 Yes I know Aird & Loch Ness was an STV election; and yes Yellow Guard is right that people don't get STV.. Nevertheless, the Lib Dems won it. Mr Kelly wrote about it as if the SNP had won, that was the problem. 3 The Lib Dems held one, lost one, gained one, all narrowly. In the other two elections they (ok then, for transparency, "we") came second with massively increased vote share. Signs of a revival?
I think you don't understand how STV works.
If you apply yesterday's result to what could happen in 2017, that additional 5% brings the SNP much closer to being able to return two candidates in 2017 while the Liberals will be unable to get First Preferences from the Independents to beat the SNP for the fourth seat.
In effect in 2017 the Liberals will be reliant on transfers from the Independents (especially the surplus over quota) and the SNP will expect direct transfers from their first candidates surplus over quota to significantly help their climb towards gaining the 4th seat.
In terms of the predictive usefulness of the poll, all that matters really is how much the SNP vote rose. It would be the correct headline for any article.
"The man in the street is going to be bombarded with propaganda backed by the Prime Minister and countless business leaders claiming all manner of disaster if we leave the EU
90% or more of that can be nullified in one stroke if we make it clear the preferred option after leaving is the EEA. But Farage will not do that and so becomes a liability rather than an asset.
UKIP won 3.8 million votes at the GE. Show me where the other 10 to 15 million are going to come from under Nigel plans and I might start taking him seriously."
This is in answer to @Philip_Thompson as well who said "UKIP only got 12%" and we need 51%
For the last 5 years or so it is UKIP, fronted by Farage, that have been shouting the loudest about the need to leave the EU. Citing UKIPs 12% election score as the ceiling that a Farage led (not that I am suggesting it should be) campaign is ludicrous, as the Polling for LEAVE has been in the 40%s...
So not as offputting as people like to think.
I accept that the final push may need to be from someone more mainstream, but please don't mix up UKIPs vote with the LEAVE score... I repeat, while Farage has been the face of LEAVE, LEAVE has been polling in the 40s (after DKs removed)
As has already been demonstrated Leave's score has gone down not up in recent years. I never for a second said that Leave was capped at 12% but I said you need to appeal to well over 50% in order to score 50%+1 (not everyone you appeal to will vote for you). Does Farage appeal to 60% of voters?
Thoughts on those by-election results 1 Tories are the only party that stood everywhere. Was Labour not standing in Aird & Loch Ness a) a unionist conspiracy or b) a sign of Labour's weakness in some parts of Scotland? 2 Yes I know Aird & Loch Ness was an STV election; and yes Yellow Guard is right that people don't get STV.. Nevertheless, the Lib Dems won it. Mr Kelly wrote about it as if the SNP had won, that was the problem. 3 The Lib Dems held one, lost one, gained one, all narrowly. In the other two elections they (ok then, for transparency, "we") came second with massively increased vote share. Signs of a revival?
I think you don't understand how STV works.
If you apply yesterday's result to what could happen in 2017, that additional 5% brings the SNP much closer to being able to return two candidates in 2017 while the Liberals will be unable to get First Preferences from the Independents to beat the SNP for the fourth seat.
In effect in 2017 the Liberals will be reliant on transfers from the Independents (especially the surplus over quota) and the SNP will expect direct transfers from their first candidates surplus over quota to significantly help their climb towards gaining the 4th seat.
In terms of the predictive usefulness of the poll, all that matters really is how much the SNP vote rose. It would be the correct headline for any article.
Palpably rattled.
No one is talking about the biggest story of those results. That utterly massive Tory surge.
"The man in the street is going to be bombarded with propaganda backed by the Prime Minister and countless business leaders claiming all manner of disaster if we leave the EU
90% or more of that can be nullified in one stroke if we make it clear the preferred option after leaving is the EEA. But Farage will not do that and so becomes a liability rather than an asset.
UKIP won 3.8 million votes at the GE. Show me where the other 10 to 15 million are going to come from under Nigel plans and I might start taking him seriously."
This is in answer to @Philip_Thompson as well who said "UKIP only got 12%" and we need 51%
For the last 5 years or so it is UKIP, fronted by Farage, that have been shouting the loudest about the need to leave the EU. Citing UKIPs 12% election score as the ceiling that a Farage led (not that I am suggesting it should be) campaign is ludicrous, as the Polling for LEAVE has been in the 40%s...
So not as offputting as people like to think.
I accept that the final push may need to be from someone more mainstream, but please don't mix up UKIPs vote with the LEAVE score... I repeat, while Farage has been the face of LEAVE, LEAVE has been polling in the 40s (after DKs removed)
As has already been demonstrated Leave's score has gone down not up in recent years. I never for a second said that Leave was capped at 12% but I said you need to appeal to well over 50% in order to score 50%+1 (not everyone you appeal to will vote for you). Does Farage appeal to 60% of voters?
I would say "You work it out" by I don't want to descend to PB smart arsery, please reciprocate
A temporary blip of a boost quickly reversed. Similarly the peak for remain was following UKIP's best election results in May last year (see Telegraph's tracker I linked above).
Thoughts on those by-election results 1 Tories are the only party that stood everywhere. Was Labour not standing in Aird & Loch Ness a) a unionist conspiracy or b) a sign of Labour's weakness in some parts of Scotland? 2 Yes I know Aird & Loch Ness was an STV election; and yes Yellow Guard is right that people don't get STV.. Nevertheless, the Lib Dems won it. Mr Kelly wrote about it as if the SNP had won, that was the problem. 3 The Lib Dems held one, lost one, gained one, all narrowly. In the other two elections they (ok then, for transparency, "we") came second with massively increased vote share. Signs of a revival?
I think you don't understand how STV works.
If you apply yesterday's result to what could happen in 2017, that additional 5% brings the SNP much closer to being able to return two candidates in 2017 while the Liberals will be unable to get First Preferences from the Independents to beat the SNP for the fourth seat.
In effect in 2017 the Liberals will be reliant on transfers from the Independents (especially the surplus over quota) and the SNP will expect direct transfers from their first candidates surplus over quota to significantly help their climb towards gaining the 4th seat.
In terms of the predictive usefulness of the poll, all that matters really is how much the SNP vote rose. It would be the correct headline for any article.
I wish I had your relentless positivity. Seems to be a trait amongs the Nats.
It's not positivity. I don't think it is enough for the SNP to get two seats.
What I'm pointing out is that Liberals taking this result as a positive may be in for a surprise in 2017 as they could end up with zero seats.
This is just the facts. 52% of the electorate voted for Independents as First Preference in 2012. 40pts of that elected the two independents leaving 12pts to transfer as Surplus over Quota,
In this election - without the Independents all 52pts were effectively redistributed and clearly massively favoured the Liberal candidate. This cannot happen in 2017. There are far less votes available for the Liberal to get the 4th spot ahead of the SNP's second candidate. they will probably just get it due to the Tory transfers but it will be much tighter in 2017 than it was in 2012 due to the higher SNP vote.
Gove is a genuine thinker who analyses the areas he is dealing with in original ways. This does not always make a comfortable minister as his experiences at education showed but it does make him one of the most interesting people in politics. For me, him explaining to that tosser that he really did need to understand the importance of free speech was one of the highlights of the last government.
His weakness is that he has shown real limitations in building coalitions behind his ideas. It would be a shame if this applies to prison reform but he does seem to have Cameron's backing for it.
Gove won't be the first who will face the formidable opponent that is Theresa May who I don't detect is a huge fan of the kind of ideas Gove is proposing. As Norman Baker found out to his chagrin, May dominates the Home Office and it has become her personal fiefdom.
Still plenty of post-Conference hubristic triumphalism from one or two of the Conservative members on here it would seem. The problems, oddly enough, start now with the ordinary boring day-to-day business of Government where things do go wrong and small problems can become crises.
The Conservative desire to build a tent so big it can encompass all opinions is staggering - pro-EU, anti-EU, pro-penal reform, anti-penal reform, supporter of City, supporter of United, there's a place for you all in the Party,
Well, perhaps, but I'm convinced politics doesn't work like that and since nature abhors a vacuum, voices of dissent can and will emerge. How that opposition manifests itself will be interesting - it may not be through the political party route but around potential successors to the Prime Minister or outside the "big tent" but as night follows day new or alternative solutions will develop and some of those will be outside the "big tent".
The big tent approach seems to me a very sound strategy; where else do English voters go? Unless you're a green eyed leftie then the answer for the greatest number of English voters to the question "Who is most likely to give me the best response to to my concerns about xxxxxx ?" will be "the Tories". This may change but none of the leaders of the other parties holding English seats look remotely like they may be capable of achieving that change. Farron looks as bad as Corbyn.
Thoughts on those by-election results 1 Tories are the only party that stood everywhere. Was Labour not standing in Aird & Loch Ness a) a unionist conspiracy or b) a sign of Labour's weakness in some parts of Scotland? 2 Yes I know Aird & Loch Ness was an STV election; and yes Yellow Guard is right that people don't get STV.. Nevertheless, the Lib Dems won it. Mr Kelly wrote about it as if the SNP had won, that was the problem. 3 The Lib Dems held one, lost one, gained one, all narrowly. In the other two elections they (ok then, for transparency, "we") came second with massively increased vote share. Signs of a revival?
I think you don't understand how STV works.
If you apply yesterday's result to what could happen in 2017, that additional 5% brings the SNP much closer to being able to return two candidates in 2017 while the Liberals will be unable to get First Preferences from the Independents to beat the SNP for the fourth seat.
In effect in 2017 the Liberals will be reliant on transfers from the Independents (especially the surplus over quota) and the SNP will expect direct transfers from their first candidates surplus over quota to significantly help their climb towards gaining the 4th seat.
In terms of the predictive usefulness of the poll, all that matters really is how much the SNP vote rose. It would be the correct headline for any article.
I absolutely understand how STV works. Who knows what support any of the parties will have by 2017's elections? Who knows which parties will stand candidates? It's Highlands & Islands territory - who knows how personal votes will stack up?
You are basing your predictions on a continuation of the current political scene. At least one referendum will have happened by 2017, never mind "events, dear boy, events".
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems won this by-election. In 2015. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
Having watched Zoe Williams on the Daily Politics, I was disgusted at her comments on 'spitting'. These lefties are so full of bile and have absolutely no self-awareness at all. She seems to be on DP almost every other day. I get the impression all the "political shows" are struggling to get people to come on, apart from ex-spin doctors and the usual suspects looking for their five minutes of fame. When Robert Peston gets up and running on ITV on Sunday's, we will have Marr, Sunday Politics, Murnaghan, Piennaar and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. That's way too much even for me.
Zoe Williams is BBC's resident comedienne. In the DP you refer to, she demonstrated just how perfect her Corbyn slouch now is. Isabel Oakeshott seems to be persona non grata and ZW gets her gigs.
I would say "You work it out" by I don't want to descend to PB smart arsery, please reciprocate
A temporary blip of a boost quickly reversed. Similarly the peak for remain was following UKIP's best election results in May last year (see Telegraph's tracker I linked above).
Yes there are times when UKIP do well and LEAVE shoots up and times when they do well when REMAIN is popular.. makes me think that Farage and UKIP aren't the kibosh you think. I, of course, never said they were the reason for LEAVE doing well.
There is also the fact that had they not been scoring so well in VI polls, we wouldn't be having a referendum in the first place.. the high scores for LEAVE when it wasn't possible are similar to high UKIP/small partyscores in polls versus actual results in elections.. the reality bites and people are less certain
None of this detracts from our agreement that Farage shouldn't front a campaign. I just cant have the UKIP 12% election score used to infer that is reflective of the score LEAVE gets when UKIP are involved
I absolutely understand how STV works. Who knows what support any of the parties will have by 2017's elections? Who knows which parties will stand candidates? It's Highlands & Islands territory - who knows how personal votes will stack up?
You are basing your predictions on a continuation of the current political scene. At least one referendum will have happened by 2017, never mind "events, dear boy, events".
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems won this by-election. In 2015. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
Well predicting what is likely to happen is kind of the point of this site - so one can profit from betting opportunities. In those terms the result only matters in how it can be used to predict future results.
My point is that when looking at an STV election, the actual byelection result is only one factor and needs to be considered in terms of what happened previously, whether candidates/parties/allegiancies were "missing" and use that to work out what that means for 2017.
On that basis, this result indicates that the SNP are closer to getting two seats in 2017 than they were in 2012 and the Liberals are closer to getting zero seats than they were in 2012.
I absolutely understand how STV works. Who knows what support any of the parties will have by 2017's elections? Who knows which parties will stand candidates? It's Highlands & Islands territory - who knows how personal votes will stack up?
You are basing your predictions on a continuation of the current political scene. At least one referendum will have happened by 2017, never mind "events, dear boy, events".
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems won this by-election. In 2015. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
Well predicting what is likely to happen is kind of the point of this site - so one can profit from betting opportunities. In those terms the result only matters in how it can be used to predict future results.
My point is that when looking at an STV election, the actual byelection result is only one factor and needs to be considered in terms of what happened previously, whether candidates/parties/allegiancies were "missing" and use that to work out what that means for 2017.
On that basis, this result indicates that the SNP are closer to getting two seats in 2017 than they were in 2012 and the Liberals are closer to getting zero seats than they were in 2012.
Not sure that there are many betting opportunities for council elections to the Aird and Loch Ness ward
When I worked for BT, their research labs tried to get Adastral Park as their domain - only to discover the name of their own location had been used by a former employee as a porn site
An ex-Google employee who managed to own Google.com for a full minute before the firm realised its mistake has revealed Google paid him for the name - and doubled the amount when he said he wanted to donate it to charity.
Sanmay Ved was idly scrolling through domain names when he realised that Google.com was available to purchase.
Bemused, the former display specialist decided to attempt to buy the world's most visited site, convinced his efforts would be stopped immediately.
England sleepwalking to disaster and not even noticing. Or if some notice, they are told not to worry.
I despise many aspects of modern Islam, an inert and often malignant force, I think we should accept there must be limits to Muslim immigration for that reason - but British citizens are allowed to pray and protest wherever they like, as long as they don't unduly inconvenience others.
Personally, I would keep all such expressions of faith to the private realm. There is no need for any religion to pray or worship in public. Keep that to your home or place of worship - don't force others to witness it.
Christians sing hymns and carols in the street. The Sally Army bangs its tambourines. Muslims must and should be given the same rights. This is a free country.
On the other hand, to protect that freedom, I would end Muslim immigration tomorrow. Essentially reduce it to zero, apart from very skilled migrants, who are well screened.
This isn't an Islam thing for me - it is an ANY religion thing. I don't want any street preaching, carol singing, tambourine banging, praying or other such activities in any public area. It is not appropriate to force your faith on any other being.
Churches and other religious buildings exist in a plentiful supply and enjoy a number of (unnecessary) tax benefits - they should be the focus for such activity. Not the streets or parks of any community.
Keep the public realm free from it all.
What, so you'd ban carol singing, or preachers on boxes, or church parades?
We have a tradition in the UK of modest displays of public faith. It's very British. I'd like to keep it.
Yes, I would. Absolutely. The public sphere should be secular.
What's great about Jeremy Corbyn is the way he brings out the inner dickhead inside so many Lefties for all to see.
He is literally an agent for the mass immolation of the British Left.
Wow! You got Corbyn for £3 - fantastic value!
There's a 'Goodies' Christmas Album' or some such name. It has a poem, allegedly by TBT;
There's a girl in 3c She has a pimple on her knee I gave her 5p, and she showed it to me
PS. I wonder what she'd do for a quid?
Even with inflation your £3 seems to have been effective.
Goody goody gum gum!
I have some if not all Goodies episodes on dvd. It's quite hard to imagine that they were such big stars. Nonetheless Mrs Oddie, Garden, and Brooke-Taylor will always have something of my attention.
What's great about Jeremy Corbyn is the way he brings out the inner dickhead inside so many Lefties for all to see.
He is literally an agent for the mass immolation of the British Left.
Wow! You got Corbyn for £3 - fantastic value!
There's a 'Goodies' Christmas Album' or some such name. It has a poem, allegedly by TBT;
There's a girl in 3c She has a pimple on her knee I gave her 5p, and she showed it to me
PS. I wonder what she'd do for a quid?
Even with inflation your £3 seems to have been effective.
Goody goody gum gum!
I have some if not all Goodies episodes on dvd. It's quite hard to imagine that they were such big stars. Nonetheless Mrs Oddie, Garden, and Brooke-Taylor will always have something of my attention.
Crikey this thread header is desperate stuff isn't it? One of Scotland's leading political sites? It's a sad and paranoid place run by someone who clearly has serious issues.
When I worked for BT, their research labs tried to get Adastral Park as their domain - only to discover the name of their own location had been used by a former employee as a porn site
An ex-Google employee who managed to own Google.com for a full minute before the firm realised its mistake has revealed Google paid him for the name - and doubled the amount when he said he wanted to donate it to charity.
Sanmay Ved was idly scrolling through domain names when he realised that Google.com was available to purchase.
Bemused, the former display specialist decided to attempt to buy the world's most visited site, convinced his efforts would be stopped immediately.
Many moons ago, Macromedia were one of the web's most visited sites. We had some bigwigs from that company in to see their Shockwave plugin working on one of our products. One of our managers types their website homepage into the browser using the on-screen keyboard, but missed off the final 'a'.
It turned out macromedi.com redirected to a porn website. The bigwigs were very shocked - they hadn't realised that someone had chosen that domain (and others) to catch the one in a few thousand people who might mistype their website. Our manager was very embarrassed and apologetic.
I thought I saw a 'formatting error' on the display, so after the meeting went back to my desk for some (ahem) in-depth testing ...
It turned out macromedi.com redirected to a porn website. The bigwigs were very shocked - they hadn't realised that someone had chosen that domain (and others) to catch the one in a few thousand people who might mistype their website.
I watched a show earlier today that said they were so behind the times, they still used Netscape.
What a rave from the grave that was. I used to do some web authoring using Dreamweaver - I haven't heard of Macromedia in years. It's fascinating how quickly tech brands rise and fall.
EDIT - I sent a colleague a stripper screen app that took off her/his clothes in the corner of the screen. He left it on whilst making a corp sales ppt - oh how we laughed
When I worked for BT, their research labs tried to get Adastral Park as their domain - only to discover the name of their own location had been used by a former employee as a porn site
An ex-Google employee who managed to own Google.com for a full minute before the firm realised its mistake has revealed Google paid him for the name - and doubled the amount when he said he wanted to donate it to charity.
Sanmay Ved was idly scrolling through domain names when he realised that Google.com was available to purchase.
Bemused, the former display specialist decided to attempt to buy the world's most visited site, convinced his efforts would be stopped immediately.
Many moons ago, Macromedia were one of the web's most visited sites. We had some bigwigs from that company in to see their Shockwave plugin working on one of our products. One of our managers types their website homepage into the browser using the on-screen keyboard, but missed off the final 'a'.
It turned out macromedi.com redirected to a porn website. The bigwigs were very shocked - they hadn't realised that someone had chosen that domain (and others) to catch the one in a few thousand people who might mistype their website. Our manager was very embarrassed and apologetic.
I thought I saw a 'formatting error' on the display, so after the meeting went back to my desk for some (ahem) in-depth testing ...
The BBC have an interesting report from the Open University on what happens to MPs when they lose their seat. Apparently there is now an organisation for former MPs. Some find jobs fairly easily - others struggle. So Julian Huppert has gone back to his old job at Cambridge University which was kept open for him. ( I know the same thing happened many years ago to Alan Beith at Newcastle - the problem was he never lost!) One unusual new job is Sarah Teather working for the Jesuit Refugee Service in South Sudan - a group I must admit I had never heard of before.
How does keeping someone's job open for them fit in with a fair job selection policy?
The BBC have an interesting report from the Open University on what happens to MPs when they lose their seat. Apparently there is now an organisation for former MPs. Some find jobs fairly easily - others struggle. So Julian Huppert has gone back to his old job at Cambridge University which was kept open for him. ( I know the same thing happened many years ago to Alan Beith at Newcastle - the problem was he never lost!) One unusual new job is Sarah Teather working for the Jesuit Refugee Service in South Sudan - a group I must admit I had never heard of before.
How does keeping someone's job open for them fit in with a fair job selection policy?
You simply define the selection criteria such that the person you want to hire is the only one which can satisfy those conditions.
The BBC have an interesting report from the Open University on what happens to MPs when they lose their seat. Apparently there is now an organisation for former MPs. Some find jobs fairly easily - others struggle. So Julian Huppert has gone back to his old job at Cambridge University which was kept open for him. ( I know the same thing happened many years ago to Alan Beith at Newcastle - the problem was he never lost!) One unusual new job is Sarah Teather working for the Jesuit Refugee Service in South Sudan - a group I must admit I had never heard of before.
How does keeping someone's job open for them fit in with a fair job selection policy?
Speaking as somebody who a) had a job left open for them, and b) took up a job that had been abandoned by somebody in the same position, the form of words is "if and only if there is a suitable vacancy". Sabbaticals aren't uncommon in certain industries and if you're willing to swallow the disadvantages (pension accrual, etc) can be quite handy. Some companies insist you don't work for somebody else during your sabbatical (eg the Civil Service).
I watched a show earlier today that said they were so behind the times, they still used Netscape.
What a rave from the grave that was. I used to do some web authoring using Dreamweaver - I haven't heard of Macromedia in years. It's fascinating how quickly tech brands rise and fall.
EDIT - I sent a colleague a stripper screen app that took off her/his clothes in the corner of the screen. He left it on whilst making a corp sales ppt - oh how we laughed
Many moons ago, Macromedia were one of the web's most visited sites. We had some bigwigs from that company in to see their Shockwave plugin working on one of our products. One of our managers types their website homepage into the browser using the on-screen keyboard, but missed off the final 'a'.
It turned out macromedi.com redirected to a porn website. The bigwigs were very shocked - they hadn't realised that someone had chosen that domain (and others) to catch the one in a few thousand people who might mistype their website. Our manager was very embarrassed and apologetic.
I thought I saw a 'formatting error' on the display, so after the meeting went back to my desk for some (ahem) in-depth testing ...
A bored colleague wrote a screensaver which had several small sheep drop from the top of the screen to fall onto the top of any open windows. Grass would grow randomly on the windows, the sheep would graze, and when/if they reached the edge of the windows, they would fall down.
It didn't really work as a screensaver, but was funny to watch.
I was evil once. A colleague went on holiday and I had to use his computer. Unfortunately his backdrop was a front-cover spread of a Silver Surfer comic, and was covered with a random and disorganised sneeze of icons. I got so fed up with this that the day before he got back, I snapshotted his backdrop, removed all the icons, and placed the snapshot as the backdrop. This meant the icons' pictures were there, but the icons were not. He managed to delete his profile and some of his data trying to recover it, before he realised what I had done.
There was also a relatively little-known command that caused text to be written from right to left that I would enter on people's computers if they were away from their desk.
I watched a show earlier today that said they were so behind the times, they still used Netscape.
What a rave from the grave that was. I used to do some web authoring using Dreamweaver - I haven't heard of Macromedia in years. It's fascinating how quickly tech brands rise and fall.
EDIT - I sent a colleague a stripper screen app that took off her/his clothes in the corner of the screen. He left it on whilst making a corp sales ppt - oh how we laughed
Many moons ago, Macromedia were one of the web's most visited sites. We had some bigwigs from that company in to see their Shockwave plugin working on one of our products. One of our managers types their website homepage into the browser using the on-screen keyboard, but missed off the final 'a'.
It turned out macromedi.com redirected to a porn website. The bigwigs were very shocked - they hadn't realised that someone had chosen that domain (and others) to catch the one in a few thousand people who might mistype their website. Our manager was very embarrassed and apologetic.
I thought I saw a 'formatting error' on the display, so after the meeting went back to my desk for some (ahem) in-depth testing ...
A bored colleague wrote a screensaver which had several small sheep drop from the top of the screen to fall onto the top of any open windows. Grass would grow randomly on the windows, the sheep would graze, and when/if they reached the edge of the windows, they would fall down.
It didn't really work as a screensaver, but was funny to watch.
I was evil once. A colleague went on holiday and I had to use his computer. Unfortunately his backdrop was a front-cover spread of a Silver Surfer comic, and was covered with a random and disorganised sneeze of icons. I got so fed up with this that the day before he got back, I snapshotted his backdrop, removed all the icons, and placed the snapshot as the backdrop. This meant the icons' pictures were there, but the icons were not. He managed to delete his profile and some of his data trying to recover it, before he realised what I had done.
There was also a relatively little-known command that caused text to be written from right to left that I would enter on people's computers if they were away from their desk.
Ah, geeks have the best fun.
A great prank was to ssh into someone's machine and use the voice command to make the computer speak. Much fun on dull days.
Ha! When I was at MCL we'd screw with each others screensavers, but nothing matched what my otherhalf and co did at Ericsson's HQ
There was so many homers going on that Sys Admin filled new servers with porn to stop employees using it for hobby projects. Usually watersports. It was so funny and WTF compared to other tech firms in the UK at the time. No feminazis making a fuss anywhere.
My husband's screensaver was a naked brunette with a strategically placed rose - I was relieved that she bore a remarkable resemblance to me.
I watched a show earlier today that said they were so behind the times, they still used Netscape.
What a rave from the grave that was. I used to do some web authoring using Dreamweaver - I haven't heard of Macromedia in years. It's fascinating how quickly tech brands rise and fall.
EDIT - I sent a colleague a stripper screen app that took off her/his clothes in the corner of the screen. He left it on whilst making a corp sales ppt - oh how we laughed
Many moons ago, Macromedia were one of the web's most visited sites. We had some bigwigs from that company in to see their Shockwave plugin working on one of our products. One of our managers types their website homepage into the browser using the on-screen keyboard, but missed off the final 'a'.
snip
I thought I saw a 'formatting error' on the display, so after the meeting went back to my desk for some (ahem) in-depth testing ...
A bored colleague wrote a screensaver which had several small sheep drop from the top of the screen to fall onto the top of any open windows. Grass would grow randomly on the windows, the sheep would graze, and when/if they reached the edge of the windows, they would fall down.
It didn't really work as a screensaver, but was funny to watch.
I was evil once. A colleague went on holiday and I had to use his computer. Unfortunately his backdrop was a front-cover spread of a Silver Surfer comic, and was covered with a random and disorganised sneeze of icons. I got so fed up with this that the day before he got back, I snapshotted his backdrop, removed all the icons, and placed the snapshot as the backdrop. This meant the icons' pictures were there, but the icons were not. He managed to delete his profile and some of his data trying to recover it, before he realised what I had done.
There was also a relatively little-known command that caused text to be written from right to left that I would enter on people's computers if they were away from their desk.
Crikey this thread header is desperate stuff isn't it? One of Scotland's leading political sites? It's a sad and paranoid place run by someone who clearly has serious issues.
It might help if they actually bombed ISIS, rather than the FSA...
I love how you can take seriously an article that uses this:
'The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the fighting on the ground, said there had been no significant advances by government forces backed by allied militia in areas where ground offensives were launched this week. "It's back and forth," said Rami Abdulrahman, director of the Observatory'
Do you realise the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights' is one man promoting the insurgency from a council flat in Coventry? Even the reporter seems to underline the irony by calling him a 'director' - no doubt they find it very amusing.
(snip)
Oddly, you do not seem to put the same rigour into the sources you use in your claims: one 'media' outlet you use belongs to a friend of Assad, and another is a blog of a woman operating (I think you said) from Australia.
But you back 'their' story, so they're fine.
I'm glad you brought this up. It is nothing to do with rigour in selecting sources, and everything to do with the information and evidence contained therein. Your policy seems to be find a source that you believe is kosher, such as Reuters, and open the floodgates to whatever they say. Conversely, you have sources that you would automatically disregard, such as RT. Surely by any objective measure this is a misguidedly simplistic way to consume news. Publications change, editorial standards change, journalists change, proprietors change.
My policy is to be aware of the bias of all, and measure each peice on it's merit. If I see a closely argued and well sourced article, I will take note of the content, whatever the 'source'. Had you even looked at the page on Syrian Girl's website, you would have seen it contained nothing more than two youtubes of mass rallies (of millions) in favour of Bashar Al Assad. Videos that couldn't have been faked without Steven Spielberg and double the cast of Ben Hur. So there was nothing there to mistrust. Until you become less myopic, you'll always miss half the picture.
The BBC have an interesting report from the Open University on what happens to MPs when they lose their seat. Apparently there is now an organisation for former MPs. Some find jobs fairly easily - others struggle. So Julian Huppert has gone back to his old job at Cambridge University which was kept open for him. ( I know the same thing happened many years ago to Alan Beith at Newcastle - the problem was he never lost!) One unusual new job is Sarah Teather working for the Jesuit Refugee Service in South Sudan - a group I must admit I had never heard of before.
How does keeping someone's job open for them fit in with a fair job selection policy?
Speaking as somebody who a) had a job left open for them, and b) took up a job that had been abandoned by somebody in the same position, the form of words is "if and only if there is a suitable vacancy". Sabbaticals aren't uncommon in certain industries and if you're willing to swallow the disadvantages (pension accrual, etc) can be quite handy. Some companies insist you don't work for somebody else during your sabbatical (eg the Civil Service).
It may be that university and some other jobs have a special status. When I first stood for parliament I had an interview with the Principal who was quite happy to give me three weeks paid leave as he thought it brought credit to the institution. If I had been elected though I doubt I would have got indeterminate leave. We are talking about the 1970s of course.
I would say "You work it out" by I don't want to descend to PB smart arsery, please reciprocate
A temporary blip of a boost quickly reversed. Similarly the peak for remain was following UKIP's best election results in May last year (see Telegraph's tracker I linked above).
Yes there are times when UKIP do well and LEAVE shoots up and times when they do well when REMAIN is popular.. makes me think that Farage and UKIP aren't the kibosh you think. I, of course, never said they were the reason for LEAVE doing well.
There is also the fact that had they not been scoring so well in VI polls, we wouldn't be having a referendum in the first place.. the high scores for LEAVE when it wasn't possible are similar to high UKIP/small partyscores in polls versus actual results in elections.. the reality bites and people are less certain
None of this detracts from our agreement that Farage shouldn't front a campaign. I just cant have the UKIP 12% election score used to infer that is reflective of the score LEAVE gets when UKIP are involved
For the record I completely disagree but it doesn't matter. Whether UKIP polling ~9% caused Cameron to offer the referendum or whether it was nearly 100 Conservative MPs rebelling on the EU vote that caused it (which I think) doesn't matter, Cameron pledged it years ago and it has since been honoured. There is no need to get a referendum promise any more - that cause is complete.
Now the ONLY thing that matters is winning the vote. The job of securing the vote is completed, the job of winning it is what remains and that can take different talents.
It might help if they actually bombed ISIS, rather than the FSA...
I love how you can take seriously an article that uses this:
'The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the fighting on the ground, said there had been no significant advances by government forces backed by allied militia in areas where ground offensives were launched this week. "It's back and forth," said Rami Abdulrahman, director of the Observatory'
Do you realise the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights' is one man promoting the insurgency from a council flat in Coventry? Even the reporter seems to underline the irony by calling him a 'director' - no doubt they find it very amusing.
(snip)
Oddly, you do not seem to put the same rigour into the sources you use in your claims: one 'media' outlet you use belongs to a friend of Assad, and another is a blog of a woman operating (I think you said) from Australia.
But you back 'their' story, so they're fine.
I'm glad you brought this up. It is nothing to do with rigour in selecting sources, and everything to do with the information and evidence contained therein. Your policy seems to be find a source that you believe is kosher, such as Reuters, and open the floodgates to whatever they say. Conversely, you have sources that you would automatically disregard, such as RT. Surely by any objective measure this is a misguidedly simplistic way to consume news. Publications change, editorial standards change, journalists change, proprietors change.
My policy is to be aware of the bias of all, and measure each peice on it's merit. If I see a closely argued and well sourced article, I will take note of the content, whatever the 'source'. Had you even looked at the page on Syrian Girl's website, you would have seen it contained nothing more than two youtubes of mass rallies (of millions) in favour of Bashar Al Assad. Videos that couldn't have been faked without Steven Spielberg and double the cast of Ben Hur. So there was nothing there to mistrust. Until you become less myopic, you'll always miss half the picture.
That is not my policy. I would suggest you think about that a little more. But in fact, your reaction to the Syrian Observatory blog fpt shows exactly the sort of behaviour you accuse me of above.
"ideos that couldn't have been faked without Steven Spielberg and double the cast of Ben Hur."
Two things to say about that: context and source. As she was not in Syria, she must have got them from somewhere. And how can she be sure that she is showing them in the correct context? How can you be sure?
The BBC have an interesting report from the Open University on what happens to MPs when they lose their seat. Apparently there is now an organisation for former MPs. Some find jobs fairly easily - others struggle. So Julian Huppert has gone back to his old job at Cambridge University which was kept open for him. ( I know the same thing happened many years ago to Alan Beith at Newcastle - the problem was he never lost!) One unusual new job is Sarah Teather working for the Jesuit Refugee Service in South Sudan - a group I must admit I had never heard of before.
How does keeping someone's job open for them fit in with a fair job selection policy?
Speaking as somebody who a) had a job left open for them, and b) took up a job that had been abandoned by somebody in the same position, the form of words is "if and only if there is a suitable vacancy". Sabbaticals aren't uncommon in certain industries and if you're willing to swallow the disadvantages (pension accrual, etc) can be quite handy. Some companies insist you don't work for somebody else during your sabbatical (eg the Civil Service).
It may be that university and some other jobs have a special status. When I first stood for parliament I had an interview with the Principal who was quite happy to give me three weeks paid leave as he thought it brought credit to the institution. If I had been elected though I doubt I would have got indeterminate leave. We are talking about the 1970s of course.
Mr Watson was absolutely right to start referring allegations of historic child sex abuse to the police. It would have been negligent to have done anything else. But he was wrong to promote those allegations as publicly as he did when he attacked the late Leon Brittan in print within days of the former Conservative home secretary’s death. The former was good judgment. The latter was bad judgment.
I'm increasingly getting the impression that Guardian moderates are feeling embarrassed by their preferred Party. That they've gone for LDs as election backers were desperate signals - to be knocking Labour five yrs out is quite revealing.
Mr Watson was absolutely right to start referring allegations of historic child sex abuse to the police. It would have been negligent to have done anything else. But he was wrong to promote those allegations as publicly as he did when he attacked the late Leon Brittan in print within days of the former Conservative home secretary’s death. The former was good judgment. The latter was bad judgment.
I would say "You work it out" by I don't want to descend to PB smart arsery, please reciprocate
A temporary blip of a boost quickly reversed. Similarly the peak for remain was following UKIP's best election results in May last year (see Telegraph's tracker I linked above).
Yes there are times when UKIP do well and LEAVE shoots up and times when they do well when REMAIN is popular.. makes me think that Farage and UKIP aren't the kibosh you think. I, of course, never said they were the reason for LEAVE doing well.
There is also the fact that had they not been scoring so well in VI polls, we wouldn't be having a referendum in the first place.. the high scores for LEAVE when it wasn't possible are similar to high UKIP/small partyscores in polls versus actual results in elections.. the reality bites and people are less certain
None of this detracts from our agreement that Farage shouldn't front a campaign. I just cant have the UKIP 12% election score used to infer that is reflective of the score LEAVE gets when UKIP are involved
For the record I completely disagree but it doesn't matter. Whether UKIP polling ~9% caused Cameron to offer the referendum or whether it was nearly 100 Conservative MPs rebelling on the EU vote that caused it (which I think) doesn't matter, Cameron pledged it years ago and it has since been honoured. There is no need to get a referendum promise any more - that cause is complete.
Now the ONLY thing that matters is winning the vote. The job of securing the vote is completed, the job of winning it is what remains and that can take different talents.
Agreed.
FWIW I don't think there has to be one group that has to stick to an agreed line/policy like a GE.. I am sure most people on here would be more receptive to the Vote Leave Take Control group that Carswell is involved with, and just as sure that the average man in the street wouldn't really understand what they are on about/would respond more to Farage's immigration schtick.. if they can balance the two there is a chance it could work
I'm increasingly getting the impression that Guardian moderates are feeling embarrassed by their preferred Party. That they've gone for LDs as election backers were desperate signals - to be knocking Labour five yrs out is quite revealing.
Mr Watson was absolutely right to start referring allegations of historic child sex abuse to the police. It would have been negligent to have done anything else. But he was wrong to promote those allegations as publicly as he did when he attacked the late Leon Brittan in print within days of the former Conservative home secretary’s death. The former was good judgment. The latter was bad judgment.
I'm increasingly getting the impression that Guardian moderates are feeling embarrassed by their preferred Party. That they've gone for LDs as election backers were desperate signals - to be knocking Labour five yrs out is quite revealing.
Mr Watson was absolutely right to start referring allegations of historic child sex abuse to the police. It would have been negligent to have done anything else. But he was wrong to promote those allegations as publicly as he did when he attacked the late Leon Brittan in print within days of the former Conservative home secretary’s death. The former was good judgment. The latter was bad judgment.
Not sure whether this has already been mentioned, but I see that The Independent appears to be recommending an EU "In" campaign based on shouting: "Racist!" at those xenophobic bigots who want to leave.
"Rather than ignore immigration, In should focus on it, and paint the Out camp as driven by Ukip’s xenophobia. Such a message would touch the young’s antennae. Besides, those voters who truly loathe immigration will not be won back to the European project: the undecided middle, on the other hand, will probably stand for EU membership over a cause associated with the far right."
Corbyn seems to know a few people who are pretty good at hurling insults (amongst other things) at "the far right" (i.e. just about anyone who isn't a Corbynista). Maybe they would be a useful addition to the "In" cause?
I'm increasingly getting the impression that Guardian moderates are feeling embarrassed by their preferred Party. That they've gone for LDs as election backers were desperate signals - to be knocking Labour five yrs out is quite revealing.
Mr Watson was absolutely right to start referring allegations of historic child sex abuse to the police. It would have been negligent to have done anything else. But he was wrong to promote those allegations as publicly as he did when he attacked the late Leon Brittan in print within days of the former Conservative home secretary’s death. The former was good judgment. The latter was bad judgment.
The BBC have an interesting report from the Open University on what happens to MPs when they lose their seat. Apparently there is now an organisation for former MPs. Some find jobs fairly easily - others struggle. So Julian Huppert has gone back to his old job at Cambridge University which was kept open for him. ( I know the same thing happened many years ago to Alan Beith at Newcastle - the problem was he never lost!) One unusual new job is Sarah Teather working for the Jesuit Refugee Service in South Sudan - a group I must admit I had never heard of before.
The former MPs' thing has been around for ages (set up by Joe Ashton, I think) - I never joined but I think it sees itself as a lobby for pensions issues and the like. I don't think it helps job-hunting.
Being an ex-MP is generally tough if you've been in for more than 5 years, unless you've kept up with your former line of work. There's only one Parliament, so you can't just go and work for a competitor, and you're by definition a loser, sometimes as part of a general revulsion from your party. I was on the committee who gave a bit of help former MPs and relatives in difficulty (there's a levy on MPs' salaries to fund it) and there were some pretty grim stories from some of the Conservatives who lost in 97. The pension was pretty good (40ths - now changed to 60th, I believe), but you can't really retire on it at 50.
About half my contemporaries have more or less retired, with a bit of consultancy here and there. Some simply live modestly - Judy Mallaber, for instance, lives in a cottage on the moors, does some charity work and seems perfectly happy. A few have done extremely well - one is head of a large company, earning far more than he got in Parliament. I was lucky myself - I'd done some work with an animal welfare NGO a few years earlier because I supported what they did, and they felt that showed genuine commitment which was a fair combination with knowing how politics works. But I certainly couldn't have gone back to IT.
That is not my policy. I would suggest you think about that a little more. But in fact, your reaction to the Syrian Observatory blog fpt shows exactly the sort of behaviour you accuse me of above.
"ideos that couldn't have been faked without Steven Spielberg and double the cast of Ben Hur."
Two things to say about that: context and source. As she was not in Syria, she must have got them from somewhere. And how can she be sure that she is showing them in the correct context? How can you be sure?
Saturday's @thetimes front page: Lord Brittan accuser admits being "right up for witch-hunts against Tories" http://t.co/2JEfW4v3Ii
They now have to pursue relentlessly all those that were up for the "witch hunt" a Labour chancellor died with honour and lots of lauding a Tory chancellor who had done nothing wrong had his name besmirched and trashed his reputation destroyed and he died without the knowledge of clearing his name.
There should be no hiding place and they should start with that nasty vindictive bastard deputy leader of Labour.
Saturday's @thetimes front page: Lord Brittan accuser admits being "right up for witch-hunts against Tories" http://t.co/2JEfW4v3Ii
They now have to pursue relentlessly all those that were up for the "witch hunt" a Labour chancellor died with honour and lots of lauding a Tory chancellor who had done nothing wrong had his name besmirched and trashed his reputation destroyed and he died without the knowledge of clearing his name.
There should be no hiding place and they should start with that nasty vindictive bastard deputy leader of Labour.
Not sure whether this has already been mentioned, but I see that The Independent appears to be recommending an EU "In" campaign based on shouting: "Racist!" at those xenophobic bigots who want to leave.
"Rather than ignore immigration, In should focus on it, and paint the Out camp as driven by Ukip’s xenophobia. Such a message would touch the young’s antennae. Besides, those voters who truly loathe immigration will not be won back to the European project: the undecided middle, on the other hand, will probably stand for EU membership over a cause associated with the far right."
Corbyn seems to know a few people who are pretty good at hurling insults (amongst other things) at "the far right" (i.e. just about anyone who isn't a Corbynista). Maybe they would be a useful addition to the "In" cause?
Can I ask the Remain campaign to take wholeheartedly the Independent's advice please?
Indeed, which is why I'm surprised this week seemed much funnier to me, as I think Clarkson is usually pretty funny and Brooker only occasionally, plus this week had Diane Abbott on it.
This has the potential to escalate very quickly. Remember how Watson himself managed to take what looked like a minor story about Andy Coulson and turn it into a major question about the PM's judgement? Lots of Conservatives and their outriders are going to love the opportunity to turn those tactics right back on him. If he can't squash this quickly (and it's hard to see how he can), it's going to do a lot of damage. If things escalate, then the best case scenario is likely going to involve him having to step down as deputy leader. The worst case scenario could go anywhere up to an interview under caution ("perverting the course of justice") and a bye-election.
I don't think it's going to lead to the stage of an actual prosecution or other form of proceedings against him, but the potential to further toxify the Labour brand is massive.
There are a lot of worries I have about the present state of British Islam, but I have absolutely no problem with Muslims praying in the street as part of a polite, non-violent participation in public democratic debate. In fact, that's exactly the sort of thing we should expect to see from a moderate, integrated community. It's not just something I tolerate. It's something I welcome.
Crikey this thread header is desperate stuff isn't it? One of Scotland's leading political sites? It's a sad and paranoid place run by someone who clearly has serious issues.
Excellent news, the In campaign chaired by a man who presided over a company which has gone absolutely nowhere during the last decade.
Quite. I never understand why people of my parent's generation are so devoted to M&S. Good food, but the rest of it is horrid.
In the 70s their clothing - both underwear, shirts, trousers and jackets were of high quality and reasonable price. I have no idea since then.
Their bras were apparently excellent too, but apart from undoing them, I have no first hand experience
Their female clothing line is poor. I believe a broker launched a scathing attack on it a few days ago. Their men's clothing line is also incredibly poor and is stuck in another century. For example, not offering sufficiently slim clothing which is increasingly popular with metropolitan men these days.
Comments
You work it out
I refer you to October and November last year when UKIP won Clacton and Rochester and scored their highest ever VI rating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#2014
Leave retook the lead in the polls
I would say "You work it out" by I don't want to descend to PB smart arsery, please reciprocate
It's just registered that you may be the Corbynista tribe man!
If you apply yesterday's result to what could happen in 2017, that additional 5% brings the SNP much closer to being able to return two candidates in 2017 while the Liberals will be unable to get First Preferences from the Independents to beat the SNP for the fourth seat.
In effect in 2017 the Liberals will be reliant on transfers from the Independents (especially the surplus over quota) and the SNP will expect direct transfers from their first candidates surplus over quota to significantly help their climb towards gaining the 4th seat.
In terms of the predictive usefulness of the poll, all that matters really is how much the SNP vote rose. It would be the correct headline for any article.
He is literally an agent for the mass immolation of the British Left.
The Liberals won a seat where 52% of the 2012 electorate did not have a candidate to vote for. What is important - from the SNPs point of view - is what happened to their vote, has it risen or fallen and how close does it take them towards beating the Liberals in 2017 for the 4th seat.
Clearly their vote rose. Clearly it is still some way short of guaranteeing them two seats on Surplus Transfers. It is probably not enough to beat the Liberals to the 4th seat but it will be much closer than in 2012.
For the last 5 years or so it is UKIP, fronted by Farage, that have been shouting the loudest about the need to leave the EU. Citing UKIPs 12% election score as the ceiling that a Farage led (not that I am suggesting it should be) campaign is ludicrous, as the Polling for LEAVE has been in the 40%s...
So not as offputting as people like to think.
I accept that the final push may need to be from someone more mainstream, but please don't mix up UKIPs vote with the LEAVE score... I repeat, while Farage has been the face of LEAVE, LEAVE has been polling in the 40s (after DKs removed)
As has already been demonstrated Leave's score has gone down not up in recent years. I never for a second said that Leave was capped at 12% but I said you need to appeal to well over 50% in order to score 50%+1 (not everyone you appeal to will vote for you). Does Farage appeal to 60% of voters?
Check this poll tracker, from 1999 to 2012 Leave was in to or ahead of Remain (barring the sole exception of 2000 when Blair was at his peak). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11617702/poll.html
Since 2012 when UKIP started to climb, Remain has started to climb. Correlation does not equal causation of course but it is interesting.
There's no excuse for an old fool like Jezza, but most of the young 'uns will grow out of it.
Reminiscent of the old Dylan song ...
"As easy it was to tell black from white
It was all that easy to tell wrong from right ...
Ten thousand dollars at the drop of a hat
I’d give it all gladly if our lives could be like that."
Check this poll tracker, from 1999 to 2012 Leave was in to or ahead of Remain (barring the sole exception of 2000 when Blair was at his peak). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11617702/poll.html
Since 2012 when UKIP started to climb, Remain has started to climb. Correlation does not equal causation of course but it is interesting.
Leave is not a Farage one-man-band.
What I'm pointing out is that Liberals taking this result as a positive may be in for a surprise in 2017 as they could end up with zero seats.
This is just the facts. 52% of the electorate voted for Independents as First Preference in 2012. 40pts of that elected the two independents leaving 12pts to transfer as Surplus over Quota,
In this election - without the Independents all 52pts were effectively redistributed and clearly massively favoured the Liberal candidate. This cannot happen in 2017. There are far less votes available for the Liberal to get the 4th spot ahead of the SNP's second candidate. they will probably just get it due to the Tory transfers but it will be much tighter in 2017 than it was in 2012 due to the higher SNP vote.
Lib Dems in council by-elections since May: 10 holds 2 losses 12 gains
Source:
https://www.aldc.org/news/great-news-from-scotland-lib-dem-gain-from-snp/
You are basing your predictions on a continuation of the current political scene. At least one referendum will have happened by 2017, never mind "events, dear boy, events".
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems won this by-election. In 2015. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
There is also the fact that had they not been scoring so well in VI polls, we wouldn't be having a referendum in the first place.. the high scores for LEAVE when it wasn't possible are similar to high UKIP/small partyscores in polls versus actual results in elections.. the reality bites and people are less certain
None of this detracts from our agreement that Farage shouldn't front a campaign. I just cant have the UKIP 12% election score used to infer that is reflective of the score LEAVE gets when UKIP are involved
There's a 'Goodies' Christmas Album' or some such name. It has a poem, allegedly by TBT;
There's a girl in 3c
She has a pimple on her knee
I gave her 5p, and she showed it to me
PS. I wonder what she'd do for a quid?
Even with inflation your £3 seems to have been effective.
My point is that when looking at an STV election, the actual byelection result is only one factor and needs to be considered in terms of what happened previously, whether candidates/parties/allegiancies were "missing" and use that to work out what that means for 2017.
On that basis, this result indicates that the SNP are closer to getting two seats in 2017 than they were in 2012 and the Liberals are closer to getting zero seats than they were in 2012.
I have some if not all Goodies episodes on dvd. It's quite hard to imagine that they were such big stars. Nonetheless Mrs Oddie, Garden, and Brooke-Taylor will always have something of my attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr6CyU-Ev_M
It turned out macromedi.com redirected to a porn website. The bigwigs were very shocked - they hadn't realised that someone had chosen that domain (and others) to catch the one in a few thousand people who might mistype their website. Our manager was very embarrassed and apologetic.
I thought I saw a 'formatting error' on the display, so after the meeting went back to my desk for some (ahem) in-depth testing ...
What a rave from the grave that was. I used to do some web authoring using Dreamweaver - I haven't heard of Macromedia in years. It's fascinating how quickly tech brands rise and fall.
EDIT - I sent a colleague a stripper screen app that took off her/his clothes in the corner of the screen. He left it on whilst making a corp sales ppt - oh how we laughed Many moons ago, Macromedia were one of the web's most visited sites. We had some bigwigs from that company in to see their Shockwave plugin working on one of our products. One of our managers types their website homepage into the browser using the on-screen keyboard, but missed off the final 'a'.
It turned out macromedi.com redirected to a porn website. The bigwigs were very shocked - they hadn't realised that someone had chosen that domain (and others) to catch the one in a few thousand people who might mistype their website. Our manager was very embarrassed and apologetic.
I thought I saw a 'formatting error' on the display, so after the meeting went back to my desk for some (ahem) in-depth testing ...
Tell your better half SK Tremayne that his novel was mentioned in the Evening Standard today. Congratulations
It didn't really work as a screensaver, but was funny to watch.
I was evil once. A colleague went on holiday and I had to use his computer. Unfortunately his backdrop was a front-cover spread of a Silver Surfer comic, and was covered with a random and disorganised sneeze of icons. I got so fed up with this that the day before he got back, I snapshotted his backdrop, removed all the icons, and placed the snapshot as the backdrop. This meant the icons' pictures were there, but the icons were not. He managed to delete his profile and some of his data trying to recover it, before he realised what I had done.
There was also a relatively little-known command that caused text to be written from right to left that I would enter on people's computers if they were away from their desk.
Ah, geeks have the best fun.
There was so many homers going on that Sys Admin filled new servers with porn to stop employees using it for hobby projects. Usually watersports. It was so funny and WTF compared to other tech firms in the UK at the time. No feminazis making a fuss anywhere.
My husband's screensaver was a naked brunette with a strategically placed rose - I was relieved that she bore a remarkable resemblance to me.
Mental, innit?
My policy is to be aware of the bias of all, and measure each peice on it's merit. If I see a closely argued and well sourced article, I will take note of the content, whatever the 'source'. Had you even looked at the page on Syrian Girl's website, you would have seen it contained nothing more than two youtubes of mass rallies (of millions) in favour of Bashar Al Assad. Videos that couldn't have been faked without Steven Spielberg and double the cast of Ben Hur. So there was nothing there to mistrust. Until you become less myopic, you'll always miss half the picture.
Now the ONLY thing that matters is winning the vote. The job of securing the vote is completed, the job of winning it is what remains and that can take different talents.
"ideos that couldn't have been faked without Steven Spielberg and double the cast of Ben Hur."
Two things to say about that: context and source. As she was not in Syria, she must have got them from somewhere. And how can she be sure that she is showing them in the correct context? How can you be sure?
I thought it was a great move to support a broader range of people to stand without worrying about the financial cost.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/09/the-guardian-view-on-child-sex-allegations-the-need-for-good-judgment
FWIW I don't think there has to be one group that has to stick to an agreed line/policy like a GE.. I am sure most people on here would be more receptive to the Vote Leave Take Control group that Carswell is involved with, and just as sure that the average man in the street wouldn't really understand what they are on about/would respond more to Farage's immigration schtick.. if they can balance the two there is a chance it could work
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/09/leon-brittan-when-did-the-police-go-from-investigators-to-judge-and-jury
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/68daa532-6e80-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html#axzz3o6TJhU4j
"Rather than ignore immigration, In should focus on it, and paint the Out camp as driven by Ukip’s xenophobia. Such a message would touch the young’s antennae. Besides, those voters who truly loathe immigration will not be won back to the European project: the undecided middle, on the other hand, will probably stand for EU membership over a cause associated with the far right."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/europe-or-bust-the-campaign-to-keep-the-uk-in-the-eu-is-lagging-and-needs-charismatic-leadership-a6686926.html
Corbyn seems to know a few people who are pretty good at hurling insults (amongst other things) at "the far right" (i.e. just about anyone who isn't a Corbynista). Maybe they would be a useful addition to the "In" cause?
Being an ex-MP is generally tough if you've been in for more than 5 years, unless you've kept up with your former line of work. There's only one Parliament, so you can't just go and work for a competitor, and you're by definition a loser, sometimes as part of a general revulsion from your party. I was on the committee who gave a bit of help former MPs and relatives in difficulty (there's a levy on MPs' salaries to fund it) and there were some pretty grim stories from some of the Conservatives who lost in 97. The pension was pretty good (40ths - now changed to 60th, I believe), but you can't really retire on it at 50.
About half my contemporaries have more or less retired, with a bit of consultancy here and there. Some simply live modestly - Judy Mallaber, for instance, lives in a cottage on the moors, does some charity work and seems perfectly happy. A few have done extremely well - one is head of a large company, earning far more than he got in Parliament. I was lucky myself - I'd done some work with an animal welfare NGO a few years earlier because I supported what they did, and they felt that showed genuine commitment which was a fair combination with knowing how politics works. But I certainly couldn't have gone back to IT.
Former Antiques Roadshow presenter Hugh Scully - who hosted the show for 20 years - has died aged 72 at his home in Cornwall
You can have another look for yourself if you like. What context do you mean? These aren't people? It isn't a rally? It isn't Damascus? The pictures they are waving are just someone who looks like Assad? Do some googling - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pro+assad+rallies&biw=1366&bih=659&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB8QsARqFQoTCK6u_oGftsgCFQO9FAodn3YODQ#
We just don't see these things.
Lib 33.8%
Con 32.4%
NDP 23.6%
Green 4.8%
BQ 4.7%
Changes compared to last election:
Lib +14.9%
Con -7.2%
NDP -7.0%
Green +0.9%
BQ -1.3%
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/07/niqab-debate-pushes-conservatives-to-first-place-in-quebec/
I think I'll stay home at that price.
There should be no hiding place and they should start with that nasty vindictive bastard deputy leader of Labour.
Last week, Jeremy Clarkson
This has the potential to escalate very quickly. Remember how Watson himself managed to take what looked like a minor story about Andy Coulson and turn it into a major question about the PM's judgement? Lots of Conservatives and their outriders are going to love the opportunity to turn those tactics right back on him. If he can't squash this quickly (and it's hard to see how he can), it's going to do a lot of damage. If things escalate, then the best case scenario is likely going to involve him having to step down as deputy leader. The worst case scenario could go anywhere up to an interview under caution ("perverting the course of justice") and a bye-election.
I don't think it's going to lead to the stage of an actual prosecution or other form of proceedings against him, but the potential to further toxify the Labour brand is massive.
Thomson: concerns raised four years ago
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/mvenu62GbC
Their bras were apparently excellent too, but apart from undoing them, I have no first hand experience
Flogging a dead pig.
Sh*t, that's too on the nose, isn't it?