Forum menu
Jamba
The word you are looking for isn't "didn't" but "hasn't". And add "yet" to it as we haven't left yet and until we better know our position for Day One we won't know the impact on U.K. plc.
And THM I realise that was a different time/reason but your belief that an equivalent hit/percentage can't occur again is based on what exactly?
is that also like when we were warned a vote to leave could trigger another indyref
like this...
Specifically? I have looked at he various independent* analysis pieces that formed part of the pre-vote conclusions and the scenarios they modelled for. They conclude that the impact will not be as great as the GFC. Nothing more complicated than that.
FWIW, I am more concerned about other factors outside Brexshit not least what happens when we wean markets off QE and stop stealing off people. This IMO is a far greater threat to markets and the economy - reversing the wrong policy will be painful - ouch.
* I say independent, but in truth they mainly use the same basic model** but vary the inputs
** an obvious source of weakness
Shouldn't the headline be SNP braced for second referendum vote 😉
[i]FWIW, I am more concerned about other factors outside Brexshit not least what happens when we wean markets off QE and stop stealing off people. This IMO is a far greater threat to markets and the economy - reversing the wrong policy will be painful - ouch.[/I]
Won't disagree with that, but my concern is that between this and the Brexit impact we'll have a serious, serious problem - therefore we really shouldn't be even contemplating Brexit and 'annoying' our neighbours/trading partners as we'll need them even more.
For one I laugh when media/politicians talk of 'austerity', this isn't austerity we've been living through but life on the never-never.
There won't be another Indy Ref with a legally binding result. Period. The Economic case for Indepence was always weakness and now its really terrible.f Sturgeon calls a second Referendum it won't be recognised and I suspect the Remain campaign will be purely Scottish. Sturgeon can't do a Zimbabwe and declare UDI. She well knows it. She has no cards to play here which is why she's being paid lip service and nothing more.
@b r all these terrible things where supposed to happen immediately upon the vote. Immediately not when A50 was triggered. Aside fom being massively biased and politicised the key thing forecasters missed was the joy and optimism of the Leavers upon winning.
I agree with not annoying neighbours - that includes procrastinating unnecessarily.
No they were not since many of rhe assumptions were based in the type of deal tha we end up with.
The one assumption that we can see immediately was the exchange rate. Forcasts tended towards a 12% depreciation in the value of £ - so how inaccurate where they.
The surprise? The resilience of the UK consumer....
There won't be another Indy Ref with a legally binding result. Period.f Sturgeon calls a second Referendum it won't be recognised
Agreed, non legally binding referendums should definitely be ignored, they are bad for the country, social cohesion, the economy etc
The Economic case for Indepence was always weakness and now its really terrible.
unless all those predicting financial hardship are just part of some sort of [b]PROJECT FEAR[/b] ???
and I suspect the Remain campaign will be purely Scottish
what remain campaign?
May is distracted by the brexit black hole, her push for a hard brexit alienating many young and previously ambivelent scotts, we all love Ruth but you can see that the brexiteers make her skin crawl
labour are non existent in scotland so cant save the union this time
Good to see more sensible, conciliatory comments from the grown ups
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39095438
[i]Good to see more sensible, conciliatory comments from the grown ups[/I]
So YOU and Jamba will be fine then, that only leaves the rest of us ITS 😉
Indeed TMH, they know they need the services and that they are difficuot to recreate and that in reality they don't want the headache. Also note comments about not swerving via brass pkates / doible hats etc. They well know it's pretty easy to relocate for regulatory purposes.
Difference is kimbers the UK has the Parliamentary authority to withdraw from the EU. Scottish UDI is unworkable.
Another word of thanks to mefty for taking the time to explain / link to articles explaining how banking and financial services will adjust. I appreciate those here won't take my word for it so someone who they'll pay attention to has to do the leg work.
Brexit is on schedule, by 2020 May will be in a stong position to win a landslide as much from her achievements as Labour's disarray and against a backdrop of an EU in even deeper crises.
To what extent do we think the country really was manipulated by clever social media campaigning?
Not really b r, FS (1) play a critical role in the functioning of any market economy and (2) provide significant economic benefits for all
It's in everyone's interests that a sensible solution is found not just those who STILL work in the sector.
To what extent do we think the country really was manipulated by clever social media campaigning?
IMO hardly at all. People have seen with their own eyes the disaster of the EU. As the Labour Wigan MP said at the weekend from 1997 onwards opinions on the EU bcame much more negative. Lisbon Treaty (and EU Constitution) and expansion Eastwards saw to that. This Leave vote has been building over many years.
A lot mol, why
Read the two books by Banks and Stimpson on the background
Why do you think yS are currently getting well ahead of the game for their second attempt right now?
Nah, would put money on there being significant compromise on FoM - one of the easier bets to make
And people who like to apply for collaborative EU science grants, they can get stuffed too.
Or EU citizens that live in the UK and would like assume certainty about their future.
Even meftys links and thms article concedes jobs will be lost
And inflation isn't hurting the poorest the most while those with large stock portfolios get happier every day.
It's definitely bending everyone equally 🙄
To what extent do we think the country really was manipulated by clever [s]social [/s]media campaigning over the last 20 years?
FTFY 😉
But in answer to your original question: A lot.
Having now spoken to a number of leave voters I'm rather terrified by the number who got their "news" about the referendum from facebook or twitter............And it wasn't because the BBC was presenting alternative opinions or the newspapers too wordy, it was often the belief that it wouldn't be allowed on the internet unless it was true so facebook could be taken at face value!
How much were people influenced by internet propaganda....
quite a lot it would appear
From Banks:
The social media campaign … was a huge success, providing a platform far bigger than the ones built up by either the Remain campaign or the official Vote Leave group, with 100,000 followers on Twitter and 800,000 supporters on Facebook, where the weekly post reach often broke twenty million people. This was achieved through having a strong focus on audience engagement, with a broad range of content designed to appeal to different types of voter … we were able to update this material in real-time to improve its appeal, driving engagement even further, building crowds… The end result was not just a fantastic tool for direct outreach, bypassing the broadcast and print media entirely, but an extremely useful database which enabled us to better understand the concerns of the voters.Goddard Gunster were able to mine this database to conduct in-depth demographic polling and recommend precision target-messaging, while focusing our greatest areas where the Leave movement had to make its greatest inroads to tip our campaign over the line. Nigel Farage’s nation-wide battle bus tour, for example, while dismissed as a bit of an eccentric romp by the media, was directed at those areas we had identified as holding large numbers of ‘persuadables’ – and persuadables identified as being most likely to be open to the UKIP message rather than the very staid, Tory messaging of the Vote Leave group. We saw the proof in the pudding on 23 June, when Leave romped home in predominantly Labour-voting, working-class areas and a 20,000-sample macro poll conducted by Leave.EU managed a bang-on referendum prediction of 52/48 in favour of Leave, while the establishment pollsters at organisations like YouGov who had thrown the kitchen sink at getting this right after the general election fiasco got it wrong yet again.
From Stimpson
By 15 April Cooper had found six attitudinally similar groups, given them names and constructed a profile of each one, complete with a picture of a typical member. He found that two groups – ‘Ardent Internationalists’ and ‘Comfortable Europhiles’ – accounting for 29 per cent of the population, were almost certain to vote to stay. A third, much smaller group, ‘Engaged Metropolitans’, was also overwhelmingly for Remain, and was very active on social media. Cooper identified two resolutely ‘Out’ groups. ‘Strong Sceptics’ were almost entirely white, likely to be aged over fifty-five, from the C2DE social bracket and with only a secondary education. They were often Labour voters flirting with Ukip, and made up 21 per cent of the population. The ‘EU Hostiles’ were typically retired, living mortgage-free on a private pension, and supporters of Ukip who got their news from the Daily Mail. They made up 11 per cent.For Cooper, the battleground would be over the other two groups. The ‘Disengaged Middle’ were typically in their thirties, relatively well-educated, middle-class, but not at all interested in politics. They knew almost nothing about the EU, and did not feel it had much to do with their lives. Seven out of ten in this group got their news from Facebook. The final group, who encapsulated the rhetorical challenge the campaign faced, were christened ‘Hearts v Heads’. They were two-thirds female, more likely to be in late middle-age, married or divorced with children, working in a low-paid job or part-time. They were disproportionately likely to have left school aged sixteen, and to be struggling to make ends meet. They read newspapers and were interested in the issue of Europe, but found it very confusing, and felt conflicted. Over 80 per cent of them agreed with the statement ‘My heart says we should leave the EU, but my head says it’s not a good idea.’ In the Scottish referendum, Cooper had had an identical segment which had helped Better Together to victory. In his April 2015 survey, ‘Yes’ led ‘No’ 55–45 among the two groups of key target voters. From that point on ‘we only did focus groups among those two groups,’ Cooper explained. Success depended on holding on to that lead.
Still reading Stimpson!
I agree with THM there is going to be a big compromise on FOM. By the time brexit negotiations and a three year transition period are over Michelle Obama will be president of the USA the Tories will landslide the GE get a further 5 years in office and then make all the concessions required to ensure the UK stays profitable - capitalism will only cut its nose off to spite it's face till the money runs out
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/27/bmw-electric-mini-germany-uk-brexit-germany-oxford ]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/27/bmw-electric-mini-germany-uk-brexit-germany-oxford[/url]
So how much will BMW be angling for?
[i]Not really b r, FS (1) play a critical role in the functioning of any market economy and (2) provide significant economic benefits for all
It's in everyone's interests that a sensible solution is found not just those who STILL work in the sector.
[/I]
So we'll just be in less 6h1t then - maybe only to the shoulders, rather than needing a straw? 😉
I've tbh THM I can see exactly why you think like you do, but I'm not giving in - I'm not becoming a 'Frenchman'.
RUN, HIDE, SURRENDER, and COLLABORATE
So how much will BMW be angling for?
That poor 350 million is going to get stretched thinner and thinner....
There is a very good documentary series about life after Brexit on BBC 1, a touch too much Remain pessimism to be completely balanced, but still very good, check it out on Sundays at 9 pm.
I think you mean Shipman, THM.
😳
Yes, got confused with two books on kindle. I should have said Shipman. Thx mefty
I've tbh THM I can see exactly why you think like you do, but I'm not giving in - I'm not becoming a 'Frenchman'.RUN, HIDE, SURRENDER, and COLLABORATE
Eh bé.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/26/grandmother-deported-from-uk-despite-being-married-to-briton-for-27-years ]This sort of shameful stuff looks like becoming common place.[/url]
But in answer to your original question: A lot.
A little sinister to consider the country's been effectively hijacked by technical means, isn't it?
John Major had some interesting things to say, today.
[I]Eh bé.[/I]
English joke.
A little sinister to consider the country's been effectively hijacked by technical means, isn't it?
Not really, when I was at school I remember reading a book about the 1960 Presidential Election and how TV was used to market Kennedy. Ever since political campaigns has used modern media to get their message across, as the media changes the methods change.
Dominic Cummings is pretty scathing about Cambridge Analytica, likes, followers and friends are pointless in his view (how much good have they done for Labour?). The great strength of Facebook is targeted adverts and these were used extensively by Vote Leave (and the Tories in 2015 under a different campaign team).
Is this bad for democracy, I think the opposite can be argued - when you look at it the Leave campaign's achievement, whether you like the result or not, was extraordinary as Governments (and the status quo) have a natural advantage in referendums. That means "the little guy" can still win. Likewise in the US, the simple fact is that Trump spent half of what Hilary spent - she was the establishment candidate - but the "little guy" won. It just he is not Mr Smith from "Mr Smith goes to Washington".
It'll all come out in the wash
targeted adverts work well but when, for example, Brexit/Trump fails to make life better for those at the bottom
the electorate become even more alienated from politics
Ever since political campaigns has used modern media to get their message across, as the media changes the methods change.
Yes, perhaps. But TV is broadcast to everyone. This time a far more powerful tool was deployed, which was targeting individuals who they thought they could have the most effect on. Campaigning is different because it's broadcast. This is targeted manipulation. This moves us further and further from open debate about the issues, so I do think it's bad for democracy yes.
First, in the UK TV is not a major "political advertising" medium, it is incredibly important, the vast majority of people get their news from TV, so to get your message across you have to influence the editors. Certainly in referendums, this favours the status quo.
Second, it is not more powerful it is just cheaper compared to conventional means using shoe leather and leaflets. It therefore opens up the field to people who are not established - what could more democratic.
Third, all advertising is manipulation, political advertising is no different.
Second, it is not more powerful it is just cheaper compared to conventional means using shoe leather and leaflets. It therefore opens up the field to people who are not established - what could more democratic
TV doesn't really open up the field to small parties. Slots on news and political programs are allocated based on number of MPs past electoral performance, and opinion polling. It's therefore difficult for new or smaller parties to be heard at all. The Greens in particular have suffered from this.
Unfortunately in the world of PC you need to give as much time/credence to both sides of an argument, even when the only folk sat on one side are gullible, charlatan, mad and/or stupid.
http://www.livescience.com/43126-creationism-vs-evolution-6-big-battles.html
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27443755 ]How BBC allocates PEB and programme time[/url]
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?
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....
[s]Paris[/s]
[s]Frankfurt[/s]
[s]Dublin[/s]
....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.
[url= 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 ]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[/url]
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.
You read that they'd announced an end date… they've been working on the site for 2 years…