(via Designated Survivor UK: What Happens if the British Government is Wiped Out? | Gizmodo UK)

How many new Twitter followers is a gold medal worth? | Alphr

Rising Nationalism Will Change The Politics Of Space — How We Get To Next

(via How Teletext and Ceefax are coming back from the dead | TechRadar)

The Teletext Salvagers: How VHS is bringing teletext back from the dead | Alphr

Google might just have built the internet of tyranny | Alphr

Tesla's premium DLC battery idea could easily backfire | TechRadar

The BBC Charter Renewal is Death by A Thousand Cuts for the Beeb | Gizmodo UK

This is my Panama Papers. I got the inside scoop on how TfL is making use of new iPad apps to keep London moving.

(via How TfL is using the iPad to revolutionise the Tube | Alphr)

Brexit would strengthen Erdogan and Putin

A New Years Resolution for the Left: Stop retweeting bullshit.

It’s happening again. The slap-up, VIP meal meme won’t die - it will just transform into yet more bullshit from lefties who should know better.

The tweet above has had, at the time of writing, 185 retweets and 124 favourites. A not inconsiderable number, and a number that will no doubt grow as it propagates through Twitter.

The guy who tweeted it lives in Basingstoke, which is quite a long way south of York. How does he know Cameron met no ordinary people? The answer, of course is that he doesn’t, and like the rest of us he is basing his opinion on a handful of TV pictures and photos.

In this video, he certainly looks like he’s talking to an ‘ordinary’ bloke. He definitely encountered this ordinary person.

Cameron was apparently “surrounded by soldiers”. Is visiting the troops something that the Prime Minister is not expected to do now? Presumably a visit from the bloke who is ultimately in charge - even if you disagree with his politics - would be quite the morale boost for soldiers who have been told to miss Christmas and help out with the flood clean up?

And meeting soldiers is probably a good thing. Would it not make sense for Cameron, whose job it is to authorise the use of soldiers to at least receive updates on whether his deployment of troops is working?

And even if Cameron didn’t meet any “ordinary people”, would that really be so bad? Surely it is literally his job to be taking charge of the efforts to mitigate the floods, rather than hear “ordinary people” explain that they are unhappy because of the floods? Surely we’d prefer that the Prime Minister was having meetings with the various agencies and organisations involved, so that efforts can be coordinated?

What is “surrounded by soldiers” even supposed to mean anyway? Are we supposed to imagine that the soldiers are providing security for him, or keeping him in a bubble? I’ve no idea what his exact security arrangements are when travelling in the UK, but even if the soldiers he was pictured with were there exclusively to protect him, however much you disagree with Cameron on politics, it surely isn’t unreasonable to expect that the Prime Minister be protected?

And as for Corbyn… for a man who is apparently principled, you could frame this as a pretty shameless photo opportunity? Perhaps Corbyn is more politically savvy than I would normally give him credit for, and he thinks that by signalling his solidarity with “ordinary people” there would be an electoral advantage? If so, bravo.

But then I think this also speaks to something bigger. Surely the Leader of the Opposition should be constantly asking himself “what is the most effective thing I can do that will hold the government to account and build my electoral support so that I can win elections and implement my policy agenda”?

Perhaps the photo opportunity with some “ordinary people” is that most effective thing. But I’m sceptical. Should he not be speaking to the media about the disastrous Tory cuts to flood defences? Or strategizing with Labour MPs to whack the Tories hard on the floods? Or y’know… doing politics?

It reminds me of this story, about how Corbyn spent one weekend singing and shaking a charity bucket to raise money for refugees. Great cause, no doubt - and the people he was with were no doubt doing it sincerely. For ordinary people like us, there isn’t too much we can do to help people in Syria.

But again, was that time well spent for the Leader of the Opposition? Was there literally nothing else that he could been doing? Corbyn might have signalled how virtuous he is by carrying sandbags and singing, but will his actions lead to policy outcomes that will make things better for flood victims or refugees? I’m struggling to see how.

The worst thing about bullshit like this is that despite being a leftie and someone who disagrees with almost everything he does, it makes me write in defence of David Fucking Cameron.

Just like with the slap-up VIP meal, if you want Labour and lefties to succeed in politics, we shouldn’t blindly promote this bullshit. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, makes our side just as bad as the right, and makes us look insane.

6 Reasons we can’t read much into the Oldham West and Royton By-Election

Last night Labour surprised the pundit classes by scoring a surprisingly resounding victory in the battle to fill Michael Meacher’s old seat. It was an important vote, as it was the first electoral test for the party since Jeremy Corbyn took over.

Judging by Twitter, both sides of the Labour party can polish the results to look good for their side. The Corbynites can point to the increased majority in percentage terms - up to 62.1% from 54.8%, and the moderates can point to the reduced majority in absolute terms: Down to 17,209 from 23,630 on a reduced turn out.

So who is right? How much should we read into the results? Here’s some reasons to be sceptical of anyone claiming we can draw any particularly meaningful conclusions:

1) Ground Game

Early reports are already suggesting that Labour had a superb organisation on the ground that was able to mobilise thousands of postal votes ahead of election day, and then get loads of people to the polls effectively. Whether this is a true reflection of how Labour’s ground game would perform in a General Election is hard to tell. A by-election occurs in isolation so the national party can throw everything it has at this one area. One place for all of the activists to visit and knock on doors, one place for all of the VIPs to descend on to sweet-talk voters.

2) Low Turnout

By-elections traditionally have lower turnout (and this was no different). What would happen in a general election when more people are inclined to vote by default - without needing as much strong-arming from the parties - remains unclear.

3) Local vs Outsider Candidates

The winning Labour candidate, Jim McMahon was a local man. He’s leader of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council. So he’ll already have relatively high recognition in the local area, will already be well connected with the local establishment and so on. His nearest competitor, UKIP’s John Bickley is an outsider who has been parachuted in by the central party, and is a veteran of multiple by-elections from around the country. It is pretty much accepted wisdom that in any electoral contest, the electorate has a tendency to a view local candidate more sympathetically than they would an outsider.

So did voters go for Labour because of the message? Or because the candidate was a local?

4) Centrist Candidate vs Leftist Leader

Many pundits are pointing out that in this by-election Labour ran a fairly centrist candidate, compared to the party leader (he apparently backed Liz Kendall for leader). So if people did make their mind up on ideological or policy grounds, did they see a moderate figure and vote for him? Or did they see him merely as a vessel for a vote for a true, left-wing Labour leader?

5) Too early for Corbyn?

Nobody in the real world, outside of Islington North knew who Jeremy Corbyn was before this summer. I don’t mean this in a patronising “look at those thick northerners” type of way - but simply that if you’re a politics nerd like me, spending your days obsessing about politics, not only does that make you weird compared to everyone else, but it also gives you a poor vantage from where to judge what political news is “cutting through” to people who don’t usually care.

Corbyn came from nowhere, and though the Tories are throwing every “security” slur they can at him, the majority of people in Britain aren’t going to pay attention until he next election. Ben Judah’s anecdotal reporting suggests that the public are only very dimly aware of who he is.

So to what extent was Corbyn a factor? Are people even aware of who he is and what he stands for? Obviously as time goes on public awareness will grow. But Corbyn is only three months into his leadership. Has that been enough time for attacks from the Tories to stick?

6) UKIP implosion?

This contest has been viewed very much through the lens of Labour’s internal battle, but could the UKIP factor also be significant? There was a lot of hype about the party in May when it seemed they might finally break through and win up to 6 seats. In the end, this didn’t happen. So would the people who voted for them, thinking they were in with a chance last time, have this time decided that UKIP were no-hopers?

More broadly, as after every election, UKIP was plunged into turmoil after the general election with the weird Farage un-resignation et al. While this news is unlikely to affect normal people (see above), could this have impacted UKIP’s activists? As a smaller party with fewer activists to draw on than Labour, could a lack of enthusiasm from the people needed to knock on doors have weakened UKIP’s ground game?

Conclusions

These are just six factors that I think make drawing any firm conclusions from the by-election hard to call. There are probably many more I haven’t considered. Sure, it could be that Corbyn’s message resonated with the people of Oldham West and Royton, but this judgement must be weighed against other factors. If you’re willing to draw any conclusions from this one data point, then you’re a braver person than me.

On the logistics of planning a “surprise” trip to Disneyland.

Check out this advert in which a man takes his girlfriend, Jen, to Disneyland Paris as a surprise. I saw it at the cinema a couple of weeks ago when going to see Suffragette. “Can you pack a bag in twenty minutes?”, he asks her at the beginning before the actors are shown rushing to get ready for travel and then finally arriving at the park. And she is really pleased, otherwise it wouldn’t be an advert for Disneyland.

Obviously it is all staged and the people on screen are probably actors. But this got me thinking: How easy is it to actually take someone on a ‘surprise’ trip?

For a start, if I was going to take my partner, Liz, on a trip I would want to check with her first to make sure she has the time to go. How can I be 100% certain that our shared Google Calendar is up to date? Poor Jen, meanwhile, might be excited by the prospect of a trip - but she’ll be less pleased if she has to cancel meetings and ask her boss for time off at short notice.

But let’s assume that all of that is sorted out. But then there’s the question of what about the price? Going to Disneyland is going to be a fairly expensive experience. I don’t know the exact cost but I would guess that the tickets for entry, hotels and the Eurostar would quickly add up to at least £500 over the course of a few days, especially when incidental costs (meals, plastic tat with Mickey Mouse’s face on, etc) are factored in.

Maybe the guy in the advert is more self-assured than I am, but I think as a general rule if I’m going to spend several hundred pounds, whether on a holiday or on pretty much anything, I would at least want to discuss the spending with Liz first, to get her advice, if not permission. Not only would this surely be polite in a relationship in which you share the financial burden, but it would be a nice sanity check. “Why would we go to Disneyland when we can go to a former Soviet Republic instead?”, she might suggest.

But let’s assume this is all sorted out. Perhaps the guy in the advert is loaded, and perhaps Jen is resigned to having no agency in her relationship.

But now I’m left wondering: How can it be possible to keep something like this a surprise all the way until you’re at the gates of Disneyland, like in the advert?

Arriving at St Pancras must have been a bit of a giveaway - unless you’re off for a romantic weekend in Luton, you’re going on the Eurostar. It is at this point that Liz would almost certainly have worked out where I was taking her - whether Disneyland or not, chance are at some point prior we would have discussed places we’d like to go and going to a train station that takes you there is a pretty big giveaway. Maybe Jen isn’t as bright.

In the process of catching the Eurostar, Jen will have noted that the train was going to Paris - and throughout the journey announcements would have revealed the train’s destination. This would be made even more explicit if they take one the services that go direct to Disneyland. Even if she had managed to fall asleep for the whole journey (as implied by the advert), she would have had to put her own ticket through the machine - a ticket that would have had “DISNEYLAND PARIS” printed on it.

But let’s assume that somehow the bloke in the advert managed it. But then there’s finally the problem of walking blindfolded. Realistically, there’s only so far someone who isn’t used to walking without sight is going to tolerate walking with their eyes closed. Without years of training or a guide dog it is going to be slow going getting from the station concourse to the the park entrance. And not only does the bloke in the advert have to guide Jen that way, but he’ll also have to stop her heightened hearing from picking up the voices of anyone else uttering the word “Disney” if the impact of the surprise is to be maximised.

Am I just incompetent or are surprise trips to places, in reality, basically unworkable?

For decades Disney has been regularly accused of creating unrealistic standards for everyone else to follow. Forget remixing the Disney princesses in every conceivable way - it is time for an advert where a couple carefully plan a trip on a spreadsheet.

James vs Ignorance Episode 1 - Superforecasters

Can ordinary people make accurate forecasts about wars, elections and other big global issues? The "Good Judgement Project" run by academic Phil Tetlock suggests that by aggregating the collective views of thousands of "superforecasters" offering probablistic forecasts, it is possible to guess right with surprising accuracy. To find out more I spoke to my friend Michael Story, who himself is a superforecaster. Michael is running the UK's (possibly the world's) first superforecasting conference in London in a couple of weeks. You can find out more and buy tickets here. As this is episode 1 of the new show, do let me know what you think!

Surprisingly, Jeremy Corbyn was the only privately educated Labour Leadership Candidate

Here’s something pretty surprising - it turns out that Corbyn is, by educational background, the poshest of the four leadership contenders.

Andy Burnham went to St Lewis' Primary School and St Aelred's Roman Catholic High School in Newton-le-Willows.

Yvette Cooper went to Eggar's School, a comprehensive school in Holybourne, and Alton College (a sixth form college), both in Alton, Hampshire.

Liz Kendall went to Watford Grammar School for Girls, which I am told is now a comprehensive school.

Jeremy Corbyn meanwhile went to the independent Castle House Preparatory School in Newport in Shropshire and Adams' Grammar School, a boarding and day school, also in Newport.

Adams, it turns out, isn’t an “independent” school - in that it doesn’t charge fees for education, but instead charges fees for boarding. The school currently charges in the region of £10,000/year for “full” boarders, and £3000/year for “day” boarders.

However, it is conceivable that Corbyn didn’t pay a penny for this school. According to Wikipedia, where I cribbed this candidate backstory from his family moved to Shropshire, so he could have conceivably continued to live at home. It is unclear from a quick glance into this what his circumstances were.

However, the school he went to before this - Castle House Prep School - does charge fees. Here’s the school’s current fees. Currently around £2500 for each key stage of learning. Obviously Corbyn was educated many decades ago so his exact circumstances here are unclear too - but unless the school has introduced fees after previously being free (which strikes me as vanishingly unlikely), it seems that - unlike the other leadership candidates - he did indeed receive a fee-paying education.

In any case, Corbyn clearly went to the poshest schools out of all of the other leadership candidates and was the only candidate to attend a school that charged fees. Even if he received a scholarship or similar (which there is no indication of), it was not a particularly humble school.

(If anyone knows better than I do let me know - I haven’t dug into the histories of the schools or anything. Perhaps they used to be run by revolutionary Marxists and were funded by selling the blood of aristocrats for all I know.)

So what can we take away from this? Obviously we shouldn’t judge someone by the education choices made by their parents, but I do think it is fun to consider the fact that the most left-wing candidate at least appears to be the one from the least humble background.

What if 2015 LibDems had voted Labour? Does it suggest Labour needs to move towards the centre?

With the Labour party currently at war with itself over its future direction, one obvious question to ask is what would be the impact of the party moving in both possible directions: Further to the left, and further to the right.

You might remember my analysis that showed if all Green voters had backed Labour, the Tories would have been denied a majority. My friend Gareth suggested that I do the same for the LibDems. What would have happened if Labour had persuaded 2015 LibDem voters to back their party?

Here’s what Parliament would look like if 100% of LibDems backed Labour, only 50% of LibDems backed Labour - and then the results of what would happen if all of the Green voters went Labour and LibDems had stuck with Clegg.

The bad news is that however you slice it the Tories would still be the largest party. But significantly if Labour had picked up the backing of all 2.4m LibDem voters it would be in a much stronger position - on 274 seats, only 24 behind the Tories, who would now be 27 seats of their own majority. So a Labour/SNP coalition (or supply agreement) would have been a more likely outcome.

If Labour only managed to persuade a (perhaps more realistic) 50% - 1.2m - of 2015 LibDem voters over, it would have meant the Tories were still denied majority and again a Labour/SNP coalition would be the most likely outcome. Interestingly, the Greens also got 1.2m votes and the outcome would be incredibly similar. So to a certain extent, whichever direction Labour moved in would yield the same (slightly improved) results.

However, the numbers also suggest that there is more “room for growth” in the centre than at the margins - with double the number of hypothetical LibDem votes up for grabs. But it is hard to draw any concrete conclusions because this claim doesn’t take into account the impact a resurgent (or static) LibDems could play, and it only takes account of existing voters. Whether Labour (and we all know I’m thinking of Corbyn and his supporters here) can successfully mobilise non-voters I’m not so sure, and is beyond the scope of this article.

There are also plenty of other caveats I could add to the analysis more generally - arguably more so than the previous Green analysis.

The Green analysis was based on the idea that Green voters would have preferred a left-leaning government to a right-leaning one. The LibDems are a trickier party to slice up as it positioned itself in the centre, so hypothesising what voters would have preferred is trickier. However, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that (as appears to have been demonstrated by the real results) many right leaning voters backed the full-fat Tories, rather than the Diet LibDems. But this is why I also did the “50%” analysis - on the assumption that only 50% of voters would be receptive to Labour’s message.

This model (if you can call some basic addition in a spreadsheet a model) also doesn’t take into account the LibDem’s historic role as a protest vote, which saw it pick up votes from people who are perhaps not even ideologically anywhere near Farron, Clegg, et al. It also does not take into account individual constituency demographics. As the LibDems have arguably been the local right -wingers when up against Labour and the lefties when up against the Tories, I would wager in reality that there is some regional variation in their supporters.

Similarly, it fails to account for what would happen to hard-left leaning Labour voters if Labour were to position itself more towards the centre to attract these LibDems: How many would bleed off to the Green party or other leftist parties?

Then there’s also the SNP (and Plaid) to take into account - this analysis doesn’t consider whether the nationalist parties would be preferable to a Labour vote for 2015 LibDems or not. Nor does it consider the prospects of a more centrist Labour with 2015 Tory voters, who will be potential switchers in constituencies where the LibDems aren’t a viable alternative.

Finally, I’m fairly sure my calculations are accurate, but I’m prepared to be debunked if you can spot any problems with the numbers. You can find the full spreadsheet here.

So, umm, draw your own conclusions.

(Full Disclosure: I’m not a supporter of any particular Labour leadership candidate, as I’m too busy being depressed by the whole thing.)

Jon Stewart’s Path to the Presidency in 2024

Tomorrow night, Jon Stewart presents his final edition of the Daily Show. He is 52 years old.

Next year, as Hillary ascends to the Presidency, he publishes a book offering his take on a wide range of issues. To the surprise of everyone, it isn’t played for laughs, but is a surprisingly serious book touching upon many of the issues he has dealt with on the Daily Show: Campaign finance reform, treatment of military veterans, and issues that were once perceived as left-wing but have become increasingly accepted in American politics: The continued advancement of gay rights and universal healthcare. It sounds almost like... a manifesto.

In tandem to this, Stewart starts a campaigning organisation aimed at mobilising the younger demographic who were his viewers on the Daily Show. This is the beginning of a data operation that can collect names and build a base of supporters.

As the 2018 Gubernatorial and Senatorial campaigns roll around, the DNC starts looking for candidates who could take on Chris Christie in New Jersey. Christie failed in his Presidential bid in 2016 and has been under fire following the Bridge scandal seems like a surprisingly weak target. But Christie is a big character - and who can take him on? One DNC operative, who has grown up watching The Daily Show realises there is a popular local man who could fit the bill.

Governor Jon Stewart takes office in New Jersey with a relatively centrist campaign - disappointing ultra-liberals, but in line with the sort of moderation he preached at the “Rally for Sanity”.

2020 and Hillary is narrowly re-elected after the toughest Presidential election for the Democrats since the disaster of 2016 shocked the party into doing something about the crazies.

2022 and in a shock announcement Jon Stewart announces that he isn’t going to seek re-election. He says he has cleaned up New Jersey politics, and wants to take his campaign for a constitutional amendment on campaign finance nationwide. He is spending a surprising amount of time in Iowa and New Hampshire.

As 2024 nears, the Democrats are in need of a new candidate who can take on an energised Republican party. Stewart is 60, and announces his intentions to run.

The media goes wild as people who have grown up watching The Daily Show over the course of its 17 years are now the political mainstream. They are the organisers, the campaigners and a voting bloc who will vote almost as reliably as the first baby boomers, who are starting to die off.

Stewart is able to assemble a coalition of lefties who like his stance on social issues and moderates who like his support for veterans. Republicans try to use endless footage from the Daily Show against him (Arby’s turns out to be one of the RNC’s largest donors), but an older audience who are more savvy about communication - thanks both to social media and watching Stewart eviscerate that sort of reporting nightly largely shrug it off.

On Monday 25th January 2025, President Stewart takes the oath of office, surrounded by his family and Vice-President Colbert.