Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Not to the same extent. She is incredibly ill-at-ease with the general public and Tory Head Office know that.
Current Affairs 2017 General Election
- Thread starter neil999
- Start date
- Status
Not to the same extent. She is incredibly ill-at-ease with the general public and Tory Head Office know that.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Theresa May
While stitching the hand of a 75 year old farmer whose hand was caught in a squeeze gate when working with cattle,the doctor struck up a conversation with the old chap.
Eventually the topic got round to Theresa May and her role as Conservative leader.
The old farmer said "well the way I see it, a woman like her is a 'post turtle'."
Not being familiar with the term,the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.
The old farmer said, 'when you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."
The old farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctors face so he continued to explain.
"You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she's up there, she's elevated beyond her ability to function and you just wonder what kind of dumb arse put her up there to begin with."
While stitching the hand of a 75 year old farmer whose hand was caught in a squeeze gate when working with cattle,the doctor struck up a conversation with the old chap.
Eventually the topic got round to Theresa May and her role as Conservative leader.
The old farmer said "well the way I see it, a woman like her is a 'post turtle'."
Not being familiar with the term,the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.
The old farmer said, 'when you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."
The old farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctors face so he continued to explain.
"You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she's up there, she's elevated beyond her ability to function and you just wonder what kind of dumb arse put her up there to begin with."
You're a lib dem supporter aren't you? I thought they'd get a significant bounce with them taking an anti brexit stance but it doesn't seem to have happened for them. What do you think has gone wrong?
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Hardcore remainers are no more than 20% of the electorate now so he's targeting an extremely small niche grouping. He's badly miscalculated how many actually seek to overturn a democratic decision. And the area they had the most chance of recovery was the west country, the only eurosceptic area they had support pre 2015.
Clegg sent them back 20 years by appearing on the front bench of a weak Tory government. His ego got the better of him. Should have taken a back seat.
Kendall's Dream
Player Valuation: £10m
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Tories refuse to disclose content of Facebook adverts targeted at marginal seats
Campaigners warn move leaves Electoral Commission unable to regulate adverts
- Jon Stone Political Correspondent
- @joncstone
The Electoral Commission says it is “live monitoring” the general election campaign and will report on any changes needed to the regulatory regime after the 8 June vote Getty
The Conservatives have refused to disclose the content of the election adverts they are targeting at voters in marginal seats over social media, raising concerns that Britain’s elections regulator is unable to properly scrutinise them.
Campaigners warn that the Electoral Commission is essentially blind when it comes to the ads because only the voters targeted by parties get to see them – unlike a billboard or television spot.
They also warn that the approach allows parties to put out “wildly different” and sometimes contradictory messages to different voters without being held to account for their discrepancies.
The Conservative party failed to respond to repeated requests by The Independent to disclose the content of the adverts they are micro-targeting at voters on Facebook and other social networks.
Labour did respond and provided a small number of adverts on request. The party however said it had over 1,200 different adverts and suggested it would be impractical to make all of them available.
The Electoral Commission says it is “live monitoring” the general election campaign and will report on any changes needed to the regulatory regime after the 8 June vote.
The content of adverts shown to voters is important because under Electoral Commission rules it determines whether spending on such campaigning should be marked as local or national.
Adverts that only promote political parties’ national messages are allowed to be registered as national spending – with more relaxed spending limits – even if they are targeted to a specific area.
But if local issues or candidates are named in such adverts then their cost must be registered as local candidate spending – with strict limits put in place to stop money from deciding elections.
Alexandra Runswick, director of Unlock Democracy, said: “Political parties targeting voters on social media during general elections is not a new issue, and yet our electoral law has failed to catch up. Rather than being able to rely on an independent body to monitor election spending – to make sure all parties are playing by the rules – it has once again been left to the public and campaigners to hold parties to account.
“Social media advertising is targeted at individuals using private online accounts and therefore by its very nature is harder to police than the more traditional campaign communications, like billboards and newspaper adverts. But we know that parties have spent and are spending money on targeted online advertising – in the 2015 general election alone, the Conservatives spent £1.2m on Facebook campaigns, while Labour spent over £16k.
“Parties should of course be able to use these platforms to reach potential voters, but the Electoral Commission also needs to be equipped to monitor how parties are spending their money. Otherwise, we simply don’t know whether they are making accurate reports.
“At the moment, too many loopholes exist for parties to exploit. Are parties, for example, declaring targeted social media adverts in local candidates’ budgets? Without urgent reform, a new election expenses scandal may be on the horizon.”
Katie Ghose, the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), said: “Digital campaigning can be a good thing, but the kind of micro-targeting we’re seeing raises serious questions about transparency. We have no idea who or how the parties are going after voters.
“And unlike public billboards or TV broadcasts, social media targeting is ‘for your eyes only’ – something that can enable parties to pedal widely different messages without being held to account.
Theresa May wants to change the internet with new regulations
“This is just the latest trend of something that is rife in our politics. The ERS has found that campaigns spend 22 times as much money in the most competitive constituencies compared to the safest seats.
“That looks likely to be replicated when it comes to the new digital micro-targeting. So in many ways, this is nothing new – it’s an extension of a voting system that leads parties to go after a handful of people in marginal seats rather than speaking to all voters.”
At general elections local candidates can spend only £8,700 plus either 6p or 9p per registered parliamentary voter in their seat, depending on the type of constituency. Nationally, limits are far more relaxed, with parties allowed to spend £30,000 per seat, usually a total of around £19m for nationwide parties.
The latest episode comes days after the Information Commissioner’s Office launched an inquiry into the misuse of personal data by election campaigns when it comes to targeting voters.
The Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, said last week there was “data protection risks” from new methods and reminded parties of “the need to comply with the law” during elections.
A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission said: “Whether a cost should be accounted for at a local or national level is dependent on who the particular activity is seeking to promote. Our guidance explains that candidates need to make an honest and reasonable assessment as to whether the costs of campaign activity were for their election or whether they were for promoting the national party.
“Targeting is not new for political campaigning; social media is just a different medium, though one which enables quick and low cost communications at scale. We are continually developing our understanding in this area, including through live monitoring of activity. We will report after the election on campaign spending, and on what changes to the regulatory regime may need to be made for future polls.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Who'd have thought it, eh?
School funding cuts to hit poorer areas harder, says Labour
Analysis says impact of new spending formula on pupils with free
school meals will be greater in more deprived areas
Labour says about half of all schools will face a reduction in per-pupil spending of 6-11% by 2019-20. Photograph: Dave Thompson/PA
Comments
274
Peter Walker Political correspondent
@peterwalker99
Monday 3 April 2017 19.27 BSTFirst published on Monday 3 April 2017
The proposed funding cuts in the government’s new spending formula for schools in England will disproportionately affect more deprived areas, according to a Labour analysis.
Labour compared Department for Education (DfE) data on the prevalence of pupils qualifying for free school meals against data from a study on the likely impact of the new funding formula published last month by the Education Policy Institute.
The research calculated that a combination of the new funding method, reduced local authority spending on schools and inflationary pressures, would lead to about half of all schools facing a reduction in per-pupil spending of between 6% and 11% by 2019-20.
The Labour analysis found the impact of the new spending formula on pupils qualifying for free school meals (FSM) – used as the standard measure for deprivation – was greater in poorer areas.
The DfE said the Labour analysis was misleading as it oversimplified some elements of the calculations, for example not taking into account the relative size of local authority areas, which skewed the findings.
In the north-east, Labour calculated that 21.3% of FSM pupils would lose out from the changes, with 16.5% gaining. In the West Midlands and London, 13.6% and 14% would gain funding in their schools, with 21% and 20.8% worse off.
In contrast, Labour said, 10.2% of FSM pupils in the south-east would get better funding with 9.9% losing out.
The analysis involved more detailed breakdowns in two areas, the north-east and London. In the former, Labour figures showed, local authorities set to gain from the new funding formula had an average of 16.5% FSM pupils, while areas predicted to see less money had a 21.3% FSM average.
There would be a similar disparity in London, with net gains for local authority areas having 14% of students on FSMs, while those losing out had 20.8% on FSMs.
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, said the figures showed the government was “failing in their pledge to build a country that works for everyone”.
She said: “The secretary of state’s so-called fair funding formula is neither fair nor funded, and she needs to look again at the impact that it will have on the most disadvantaged areas in our country before moving forward with it.”
The analysis heaps further pressure on the government amid widespread speculation the proposals could be dropped or amended, given disquiet among some Conservative backbenchers.
A consultation on the plans ended on 22 March. The DfE and Downing Street will assess the responses and make a decision. Theresa May’s spokesman has stressed that the government aims to listen to views on the issue, and “make sure we get it right this time”.
A DfE spokesman said: “This research is misleading and inaccurate. Our proposed national funding formula allocates more money to deprivation, a total of £5bn, and widens the definition so more pupils are included.
“This means more money for more schools in the most deprived areas of the country – ending the postcode lottery of the past.
“There is broad consensus on the need for a fairer funding formula and we have been consulting schools, governors, local authorities and parents and will carefully consider the responses to make sure we get the formula right.”
School funding cuts to hit poorer areas harder, says Labour
Analysis says impact of new spending formula on pupils with free
school meals will be greater in more deprived areas
Labour says about half of all schools will face a reduction in per-pupil spending of 6-11% by 2019-20. Photograph: Dave Thompson/PA
Comments
274
Peter Walker Political correspondent
@peterwalker99
Monday 3 April 2017 19.27 BSTFirst published on Monday 3 April 2017
The proposed funding cuts in the government’s new spending formula for schools in England will disproportionately affect more deprived areas, according to a Labour analysis.
Labour compared Department for Education (DfE) data on the prevalence of pupils qualifying for free school meals against data from a study on the likely impact of the new funding formula published last month by the Education Policy Institute.
The research calculated that a combination of the new funding method, reduced local authority spending on schools and inflationary pressures, would lead to about half of all schools facing a reduction in per-pupil spending of between 6% and 11% by 2019-20.
The Labour analysis found the impact of the new spending formula on pupils qualifying for free school meals (FSM) – used as the standard measure for deprivation – was greater in poorer areas.
The DfE said the Labour analysis was misleading as it oversimplified some elements of the calculations, for example not taking into account the relative size of local authority areas, which skewed the findings.
In the north-east, Labour calculated that 21.3% of FSM pupils would lose out from the changes, with 16.5% gaining. In the West Midlands and London, 13.6% and 14% would gain funding in their schools, with 21% and 20.8% worse off.
In contrast, Labour said, 10.2% of FSM pupils in the south-east would get better funding with 9.9% losing out.
The analysis involved more detailed breakdowns in two areas, the north-east and London. In the former, Labour figures showed, local authorities set to gain from the new funding formula had an average of 16.5% FSM pupils, while areas predicted to see less money had a 21.3% FSM average.
There would be a similar disparity in London, with net gains for local authority areas having 14% of students on FSMs, while those losing out had 20.8% on FSMs.
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, said the figures showed the government was “failing in their pledge to build a country that works for everyone”.
She said: “The secretary of state’s so-called fair funding formula is neither fair nor funded, and she needs to look again at the impact that it will have on the most disadvantaged areas in our country before moving forward with it.”
The analysis heaps further pressure on the government amid widespread speculation the proposals could be dropped or amended, given disquiet among some Conservative backbenchers.
A consultation on the plans ended on 22 March. The DfE and Downing Street will assess the responses and make a decision. Theresa May’s spokesman has stressed that the government aims to listen to views on the issue, and “make sure we get it right this time”.
A DfE spokesman said: “This research is misleading and inaccurate. Our proposed national funding formula allocates more money to deprivation, a total of £5bn, and widens the definition so more pupils are included.
“This means more money for more schools in the most deprived areas of the country – ending the postcode lottery of the past.
“There is broad consensus on the need for a fairer funding formula and we have been consulting schools, governors, local authorities and parents and will carefully consider the responses to make sure we get the formula right.”
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
And what is that as a percentage of its total funding and income......
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
It certainly is when you refuse to have debates / engage in the media side of things in order to meet the public.
- Status