How BBC allocates PEB and programme time

It therefore opens up the field to people who are not established – what could more democratic.

Democracy works when the candidates present the arguments *to everyone* and we all debate them. It doesn’t work when candidates target certain sub-sets of people who they think they can persuade more easily. That is not about the merit of the argument, it’s about who can easily be manipulated.

Third, all advertising is manipulation, political advertising is no different.

In terms of operation it is, but not in terms of consequence. If a small number of people can advertise more effectively (by whatever means) they are more likely to get THEIR OWN way, and elections will reflect THEIR opinions, not the opinions of the people. That’s not democratic is it?

Mol – your logic seems misplaced. Didn’t the referendum increase participation in the political process? People who normally cant be arsed became engaged and involved – ditto the Scottish referendum. Ok in both cases, it took huge amounts of BS to stimulate the engagement, but which is worse?

There is nothing new in targeted campaigning either. Thats just common sense.

Who puts the x in the box at the end of the day?

It depends on what kind of democracy is happening. Quality vs quantity, if you like.

You seem to be arguing against the fact that in recent cases arguments were presented to those who were previously not involved.

Purveyors of truth need to wake up to modern social media. We are miles behind which is letting the BSers succeed. That’s the issue that needs addressing – communication has moved on but mainstream parties have not. Thats not a failure of democracy, it a failure of out-dated approaches to engaging with voters.

Why do you think yS are so active on their social media strategy right now – they will be well ahead in the comms battle if and when a second referendum comes.

in recent cases arguments were presented to those who were previously not involved.

If only one side uses this technique, then surely those people are only hearing one side? Of course that’s a failure of remain to exploit this technique, but then we are making this into a game aren’t we? With winners and losers in campains.

Democracy should reflect the feelings of the people, not who’s better at campaining. And yes, it has always been the case, but at least in the past everyone saw the same stuff so each side could refute the other.

Did they?

News has always been filtered (1) by obvious means eg papers read, communities lived in etc and (2) personal confirmation biases.

Recent votes have seen significantly higher levels of debate and engagement. Despite the fact, that I was on the losing side in the EU version, that represents a success not a failure of democracy.

by obvious means eg papers read

Yes, but anyone could go and buy all the papers that day to see what the opposition were claiming. With targetted sm campaigns, you’d have to build a load of fake profiles to try and attract their interest. Not easy and costs more than 50p a time.

Recent votes have seen significantly higher levels of debate and engagement

And warnings about social media bubbles…

I don’t regard voter numbers as a measure of democratic efficacy. I would measure based on how accurately people’s real views are represented. Some years ago when the website ‘howshouldIvote.com’ launched (or whatever it was called) it showed something like 80% of people agreeing with Lib Dem policies. But did they win 80% of the vote?

But they don’t do they – they buy the paper they always buy and get “fed” the lines they have always been fed.

Plus the internet has allowed us to spot the BS a mile away. We have sites like full fact and others and it often takes less than 2 minutes to google authorative sources to do your own research. There are fewer excuses for swallowing BS now than in the past.

If people dont – then that is THEIR fault and THEIR responsiblity

edit for edit: again I think you are mixing up different things. You last point is more to do with voting systems IMO. We had a vote on that too…!

But they don’t do they – they buy the paper they always buy and get “fed” the lines they have always been fed.

I mean the campaigns can buy each other’s papers. So if Labour see the Telegraph saying something, they know, and they can refute it. Everyone’s media is out in the open.

If one side is targetting individuals then the other side doesn’t even know.

We have sites like full fact and others and it often takes less than 2 minutes to google authorative sources to do your own research

a) people don’t and

b) if you google for hot political topics you often get even more BS back. Hence the fake news problem recently reported. It was reported that people simply invented stories, which were so widely reported and re-reported that people beleived in them, and even when they were refuted people doubted the refutation not the original story.

What I think I am hearing is democracy is wonderful as long as I get the result I want …When I dont clearly the voters were manipulated.

Indeed 😉

Molgrips – you are just making up definitions of democracy

Post edited.

What I think I am hearing is democracy is wonderful as long as I get the result I want

And that illustrates my point. You are hearing that because you want to hear that. Nothing I can say will change your mind. I could invite you to search past political threads and cite where I’ve said democracy is wonderful – but you won’t do that, will you?

Molgrips – you are just making up definitions of democracy

I’m saying how I think it should work and what it should do. The dictionary definition doesn’t do that, does it? So I’m not making anything up, I’m interpreting and extrapolating. As is everyone else.

Somebody invented a 670 book of fairy tales recently and some would have us believe that there is demand for more such BS not less.

Apparently Indy2 is all May’s fault now!!

Nothing I can say will change your mind.

A valid argument would be a starting point…

The dictionary definition doesn’t do that,

No but Robert Dahl’s does and has the merit of some cogency.

A valid argument would be a starting point

That was specifically in reference to wicki’s comment, that he has already decided I’m simply whining about having lost, which makes all my arguments invalid in his mind regardless of their merit.

No but Robert Dahl’s does and has the merit of some cogency

Care to explain that properly?

That was specifically in reference to wicki’s comment, that he has already decided I’m simply whining about having lost, which makes all my arguments invalid in his mind regardless of their merit.

There would appear to be some validity in that idea 😉

“all” is a bit strong though IMO

So because I lost, I can’t make an argument about the political system being ineffective?

That’s not really rational. In case you’d missed it, rationality is what I’m trying to promote.

You can make whatever argument you like – the more the better. As I said, I am just confused by what appears to be a mix of different ideas…

Which ideas are confusing? I must not have made myself clear.

The ones on democracy…true.

Ok well I’ll re-iterate.

1 – People are at risk of being manipulated by campaigns.
2 – This does not necessarily create good democracy.
3 – Democracy should be evaluated on how well the result represents the true feelings of voters, not how well campaingers can influence the expression of those feelings.
4 – Targetted social media manipulation is worse than traditional media because it is private rather than broadcast and available to everyone.

Had to update my Good Clinical Practice certification this morning, which includes an update on drug trial regulation etc, the usual tedium was made more frustrating than normal by questions over the UKs future

Brexit and us leaving the EMA? is going to create an almighty mess

cant see how it wont slow down research in this country and certainly collaboration in pan european trials

I really don’t care how Brexit came about or how many people voted for it, it’s still a bad idea and will be bad for the UK and the majority of its citizens along with having a negative impact on the rest of the EU.

And looking at the miserable turnout at the Stoke by-election it appears the ‘majority’ have disappeared again.

I have to agree with Molgrips about how targeting results in a very different democracy to an open public debate…that isn’t just a new media effect of course, but you can argue targetting is more effective with the addition of modern tools and platforms. Classic example is the way immigrants from outside the EU, and undecided as regards the referendum, were targeted with suggestions of more lax immigration controls for those coming from non-EU countries once we leave… a message that wouldn’t have gone down well with other undecided groups… a lot of effort went into this, but it hardly dented the national media conversation.

Everyone has their own bubbles, the better campaigns penetrated the undecided bubbles far more effectively, and selectively, than the losing campaigns.

I have only ever had one political party knock on my door in twenty years – so can I count myself as a victim of targeted and undemocratic politics? 😉

Door to door canvassers go to every house don’t they?

If they assessed each person and only went to certain doors – that would be a bit sinister, woudn’t it? Do they do that?

Obviously not – only one party has ever knocked on my door. i have been deprived of participating in a democratic process, I want my money back

The others have targeted their message elswhere

Every house in a particular area, I meant.

Some do indeed have target lists when calling door to door.
If only to avoid those houses that have told callers to ____ off at past elections.
Postcode targeting is also used.
Streets where data shows there’s lots of pensioners are top targets… more likely to be in, more likely to take time to talk, more likely to vote.

I wonder how the good burghers of Cornwall are feeling today?

like turkeys?

http://www.cornish-times.co.uk/article.cfm?id=109342&headline=Cornwall%20%27disappointed%27%20at%20Government%20funding&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2017

The floodgates continue to be quietly shut

Goldman’s pre-Brexshit plans include announcing today that they are building a new 1.1 million sq foot office in….

Paris
Frankfurt
Dublin

….LONDON. Ready 2019.

Who would have thought it?

.. and pulling their old one down? 😉

Meanwhile BMW are shifting production of new mini model from Oxford back to the mothership, possibly along with other parts of the business.

“BMW is apparently investigating the construction of the electric model of its British small car brand Mini in Germany. The main plant in Oxford is no longer set for the project”

“more than half of the 200,000 minis produced on the island were exported to the EU in 2015. This is also the case for a large proportion of engines and components produced in Great Britain. A free trade is therefore of great importance for BMW”
-Ian Robertson, head of sales and marketing of BMW Group in Germany..”

BMW employ 24,000 people in the UK, not including those working for supplier companies.

http://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/autoindustrie/bmw-will-e-mini-wegen-brexit-wohl-nicht-in-grossbritannien-bauen-a-1136431.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#ref=rss

The Goldman Sachs building has been on the go for years, hasn’t it?
Site was cleared before the referendum, and construction contracts signed back then.
Original plan was to move staff from the US into there… but that seems to have gone quiet.
In fact lots of chatter about the reverse happening, and New York preparing for UK staff now.

No chance of the new London HQ building being canned at this late stage really… more likely to sell other sites for big money. They also have the flexibility to occupy as few floors of the new building as they want, no commitment to using the whole thing. Wiley chaps at Goldman… …the new building can used as the ideal base for a smaller UK presence, all in one place, just as easily as giving them the room to move people to the UK if a miracle occurs and our future trading arrangements are good and shiny.

You knew all that though, didn’t you THM.

No, read it this afternoon and had forgotten. Headhunter sent me the link.

FWIW, friend at GS is quite worried that he may well be one of the small number (% wise) that may have to consider relocation.