Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Maybe a reason why LAB gets poor media coverage is that the Co
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Maybe a reason why LAB gets poor media coverage is that the Corbyn-appointed PR team is not up to it
This. Every Lab MP should read this & be embarrassed. The Lib Dems do vg rebuttal, quotes and opposition research… pic.twitter.com/Ts9OiXewPY
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Edit: Third like .... being after Second.
https://twitter.com/CorbynSuperFan/status/847546446610083844
Brave.
FPT 2: Comrades, listen not to the neo-Osbornite numerological depravities of the capitalist propagandists!
Chairman Corbyn's popularity goes from strength to strength. Who has received a standing ovation from Islington South's Manhole Inspection Association? None but he!
Edit - curse you, MD, it was an obvious joke, but it was my turn!
Unfortunately none of that is an adequate defence. Opponents do not owe you a fair shake. Fact is even if he and they are not the problem - although frankly they are the most immediately critical - they do not appear to be capable of addressing whatever is the problem beyond whining about it.
(*) Checked back to 1966-70 government thus far.
Kind of why Copeland was important. It means Labour could lose more than Copeland at the GE. Alot more.
Ishmael_Z said:
We don't have songbirds here in the UK any more anyway, because cats and because the RSPB has narrowed its own remit to the protection of raptors. In the circumstances I can't get very excited about the Cypriots harvesting some of theirs, though their methods do seem a bit harsh. Learning of the existence of the EU Birds Directive is one of those things that make one think Brexit isn't all bad.
Monksfield:
You're moving onto a subject you clearly don't know a great deal about, and I do.
We don't have songbirds because there's hardly any habitat for them. Have you actually looked at what the countryside contains these days? Field after field containing one crop species, be it rye grass, oil seed rape or wheat. None of it much cop for the vast majority of wildlife. Big fields with little cover, good for big efficient machinery but not much cop for most wildlife. Vast use of insecticide, good for prophylactic farming but not much cop for wildlife, whose foodchain is being eradicated.
Predators will only survive if there is sufficient prey in the landscape. It's density dependence, a fundamental ecological principle. That's probably why predators like kestrels and barn owls have declined. Like songbirds, the countryside is not an especially friendly place for the small mammals they eat. Think about how the countryside has changed from a diverse, intimate landscape to a hugely modified, simplified and still pretty but ecologically denuded one.
However, yes a few predators have prospered, partly due to less persecution but also because the shooting industry feeds them and on a vast scale. By releasing millions of pheasants every year and providing all the associated feeders and crappy maize margins, this has provided a fabulous source of food for rats, foxes, buzzards, kites and various other omnivorous predators and scavengers. The scale of pheasant releases has increased massively since the 70s as pheasant shoots have become business. I suspect the net negative impact of the shooting industry on wildlife (which has not been quantified) is as devastating as that from agricultural intensification.
Yeah, cats eat songbirds, but by and large the ones they eat are not the ones that are declining: blackbirds, dunnock, blue tit etc. It's more specialised species that have declined the most.
Matt Zarb-Cousin @mattzarb
For the past 10 months I've handled 1000s of calls & texts, sometimes between 80-100 a day. Usually responded in 10 mins. Never more than 30
I'm now reading that Labour's press operation is "unresponsive". This is simply not true for the leader's office. Ask anyone in the lobby
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian
ok so this has all been wildly blown out of proportions but again, FWIW I never singled out the leader's office, I know you're good
I would say that conference 2018 is the last sensible time to get a new leader. In a year and a half the public will get to know them and be able to make up their minds if he/she is a PM in waiting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.html
My point was that it takes some effort to develop a sympathetic relationship with the BBC which Miliband's team managed to do whereas Corbyn's team have apparently failed. When did Corbyn last meet with BBC execs to discuss his plans to "weaponise" anything?
Reading across Labour's 2010 and 2015 results, combined with a spread of regional polls or subsamples they will be:
Scotland: Tory support levels 1997-2015
Wales: lose one in ten of 2015 voters
North: lose one in four of 2015 voters
Midlands: lose one in four of 2015 voters
London: revert to 2010 result
South and East: already hollowed to core at around 16-18%
Generating theories based on past data is no more than storytelling. For each set of data, multiple stories, each internally consistent, can be told. Swingback is disprovable, with the first instance it does not hold good. But each time swing back happens, all it does in confirm our bias for this story - it proves nothing.
Their only Scottish MP was incandescent as was Kesia Dugdale. If the leadership say the first thing that comes into their heads they can't really be described as a party. It wasn't Milne who did it but Corbyn
"Two percent would mean military expenses of some 70 billion euros. I don't know any German politician who would claim that is reachable nor desirable," Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said at the first NATO meeting attended by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson."
This does not bode well for the EU-US relationship.
As an aside, perhaps the UK should respond to the EU "I don't know any British politician who would claim that 60 billion pounds divorce settlement is either reachable nor desirable".
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSKBN1720WV
Edit to add: in fact if my model were correct, it would turn out to be just boring old mean reversion. Which we know to be a thing.
However the Tories have outperformed this markedly post-Brexit.
I'm only considering Lab/Tory for this model, and have decided to exclude Scotland as it is such a different beast now (NI excluded too of course, not Wales)
Information is not knowledge
Knowledge is not wisdom.
On the issue of Brexit being protected by referendum; isn't the law that the coalition government brought in to require a referendum if substantial powers go to the EU still relevant? I guess EEA wouldn't be the EU, but it would likely be substantial powers.
Hence the reference to the NFL and US economy, or more pertinently the direction of its stock market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_indicator
By-elections and General Elections and local elections have the common factor of PEOPLE GOING OUT TO FECKING VOTE. I do not see what a model that is clearly coincidence has to do with a voting model based off of actual voting.
BEs/GEs/LEs OTOH should logically not be independent.
Objecting to a NATO exercise in Poland (which takes place every two years) the German President Steinmeier says
"What we shouldn't do now is inflame the situation further through sabre-rattling and warmongering,"
"We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation," he said, adding that it would be "fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.
Steinmeier has called for America to withdraw troops from Europe.
Merkel has said that soft power (the power of the money lender) should be included in any estimate of military expenditure.
So it looks as though Germany has learnt one lesson from the last war, but not the lesson learnt by the other countries.
Another case that you might find more palatable. Professor Doll's initial data showed that coffee drinking was very highly correlated with lung cancer. The fact is that coffee drinking and smoking were also highly correlated. Coffee drinking does not cause lung cancer. We know the true causal linkages not from the statistics, but from the biology, even if statistics pointed us where to look.
PS When writing scientific papers to journals, do you rely on the commonsense argument?
Let's leave it at that.
Germany - and others - need to keep their NATO commitments. But I think it is also deeply unrealistic to expect spending to increase at more than a 5-7% real rate. That means it'll take a decade or so to get up to the 2% level.
I also think that when Trump delivers an 'invoice' to Germany, then that is likely to have the opposite effect of that desired. Given how unpopular Donald Trump is in Germany, being seen to 'fold' to him would have negative effects on the government's popularity.
The bang matters more than the buck, in defence as in every other area of public spending.
But we will hear them. And then reply on Twitter to them. And then re-tweet them. And then start a new PB thread which mentions them. And then have a long discussion about them in the comments section of the said thread.
Project Fume.
The EU are really annoyed with us.
Another point: what if one country's 1.2% was better spent than some other country's 2%. A few billions of overspend on big toys. Is that a good spend or a bad spend ?
Perhaps NATO should set out an interchangeable level of
{Nuclear weaponry/land capability/air capability/military intelligence assets/sea capability} per billion dollars of US GDP per economy ?
A nation can mix as it sees fit, but must provide assets in total in relation to its GDP.
How would Britain fare on that front ?
In order to push back on Pulpstar, you need to be saying that the mechanism he proposes for "swing back" is flawed or deficient in some demonstrable way, and that you have a better explanation of the pattern of results (e.g. as RCS1000 has proposed for your Superbowl figures).
They are toxic for a reason.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-50-things-ireland-needs-to-know-1.3030493
If so, it's a non-issue. Any sabre-rattling by Spain can be dealt with easily in one of two ways, according to the taste of the Gibraltarian people:
1. Offer them a vote on joining the UK. If Gibraltar decides to become a constituent part of the UK rather than an overseas territory, then the exit deal automatically applies to it. And why not? France already has several remote overseas departments that count as an integral part of the country.
2. If Gibraltar doesn't want to join the UK, then throw so much money at it that any problems caused by Spain are more than compensated for. There are only about thirty thousand people there. How expensive can it be?
We broach security co-operation and it's a "threat" that is "bullying" and "antagonistic".
They broach part of our country and it's "a negotiating position" that "might be necessary to get the best deal".
Security co-operation and Gibraltar are staying, Merkel and May are grown ups.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/847814493279313920
Mr. Rabbit, well, quite.
Is interesting.
But some of the stats are misleading. For example it states we have 42 aircraft carriers, but an inspection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country reveals we have 40 decommissioned and 2 under construction which makes errm zero.
The matter is simple to explain:
- The Shadow Cabinet have indeed given up politics because they have more important internal battles to fight.
- The PLP have given up politics because they have no support from their leadership.
For the time being, there is no Labour Party so who needs media coverage?