Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Huge Facebook poll points to hung Parliament


Facebook users vote for hung parliament in ground-breaking ‘snap election’

 

-Social media election kicks off by revealing that a third of women voters are still undecided-

 

The UK is heading for a period of political gridlock according to a ground-breaking ‘snap election’ on Facebook, held within hours of Gordon Brown’s election announcement.

 

Voters on Facebook put the Tories marginally ahead with 33.0% of the vote. But due to the quirks of the electoral system, Labour’s vote of 28.6% could still be enough to make it the largest party, potentially leading to the first hung parliament since 1974 and weeks of wrangling over who will form the next government.

 

If these results were replicated nationwide, 6 May would see 293 Labour MPs returned to Parliament, 265 Conservative and 59 Liberal Democrat. This would mean that for the first time since 1974, the party with the most votes would not win the most seats.

 

With 2010 dubbed the first ever social media election, 16,000 Facebook users participated in the snap election today, just 90 minutes after Prime Minister Gordon Brown had publicly declared an election and three weeks after Facebook launched its Democracy UK fan page, bringing people and politics together.

 

Within 20 minutes of the snap election being called, the results put the Conservative Party in the lead with 33.0% of those planning to vote on 6 May, the Labour Party in second place with 28.6% and the Liberal Democrats on 17.5%. A large block of voters – 20.8% - are rejecting mainstream parties altogether.

 

With a month to go until polling day, the snap election reveals that almost a quarter of voters – 22.5% - have yet to make up their minds. And the results show that women could be the ones who decide the outcome of the 2010 general election, with just under a third (29.6%) undecided about whom they would vote for – twice as many as men (14.6%). 

 

The rapid results show that although voters are turning their backs on Labour, they are not necessarily endorsing the Conservative Party as their preferred alternative.

 

Over half of respondents were 18- 24 year olds, the majority of whom will be voting for the first time this year. Amongst 18-24 year olds 32.1 % backed the Conservatives, versus 29.5% backing Labour. But the results show little variation across the generations – even when weighted for age, the snap election still shows a hung parliament with Labour the largest party.

 

Richard Allan, Director of Policy, Europe at Facebook said:

 

“Facebook users have today delivered their verdict on who they would like to rule the country and it’s clear that although people are rejecting the Labour Party, they are not yet endorsing the Conservatives. The election remains too close to call and a significant number of voters are undecided

 

“With a month to go until the UK heads to the polls it’s clear that if they want to secure election success parties will have to convince those undecided voters, women in particular, that they have the policies and people to make a genuine difference to people’s lives.

 

“With 16,000 people voting in only 20 minutes in our snap election, it is clear that social networking sites like Facebook will play a massive role in helping voters to make up their minds.”

 

For more information

Please contact Sally Aldous, Matthew Burchell, Lotte Jones, or Laurie Erlam at facebook@bluerubicon.com or 0207 260 2700

 

Notes to editors

 

1.    More than 16,000 people voted in the Facebook snap election which took place between 12:40 – 1:15pm. Ballot papers appeared in the right-hand side of Facebook user’s newsfeeds.

 

2.    Users were asked: With Gordon Brown calling the 2010 general election, have your say TODAY in Facebook’s snap election. Which political party will you vote for in the general election on 6 May?

 

·         Labour

·         Conservative

·         Liberal Democrat

·         Other (e.g. Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru)

·         I haven’t decided who I’m voting for

 

3.    The results were:

 

Lab

Con

LD

Other

Snap poll results

29.0%

32.7%

19.1%

19.2%

Weighted by age

28.6%

33.0%

17.5%

20.8%

18-24

29.5%

32.1%

21.5%

16.9%

25-34

27.5%

35.3%

17.8%

19.4%

35-49

28.9%

32.1%

15.6%

23.5%

Male

29.0%

33.0%

18.4%

19.6%

Female

29.0%

32.0%

20.1%

19.0%

Projected seats

293

265

59

Projected seats (weighted by age)

288

272

57

 

Decided

Undecided

Snap poll results

79.2%

20.8%

Weighted by age

77.5%

22.5%

18-24

81.3%

18.7%

25-34

77.7%

22.3%

35-49

75.8%

24.2%

Male

85.4%

14.6%

Female

70.8%

29.2%

 

 

4.    Seat projections were made using www.electoralcalculus.co.uk

5.    Facebook’s general election fan page is: www.facebook.com/democracyuk

 

Media enquiries should be directed to facebook@bluerubicon.com or you can phone 020 7260 2700 and ask for a member of the Facebook team.

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Hyper local bloggers report better than the Guardian

It’s a bit of a complex story, but a summary is that local bloggers are often now doing a better job than the national media.


In 2005 in Kennington a secondary school called Lilian Baylis got moved to a new site.

The use of the old site has been much debated locally since then.

The Guardian today majored on a report that claimed that Lambeth council is about to become a ‘John Lewis’ council, using this site as the primary case study.

It turns out, if you do good old fashioned journalism (as the Lurking about SE11 blog has), that the Guardian have been completely spun by the council’s press officers – and have bought the story that the lovely council have saved the site from being privatised – and instead have turned it into a lovely cuddly mutual. Instead it seems that the truth is a lot more complex.

I won’t try and explain a very complex story any further, but it struck me as interesting that even the Guardian (with relatively large journalistic resources) have failed to do basic journalism (like talking to more than one side of a story). Lurking about SE11's email and article are below:



Former Lilian Baylis costing tax payer £380,000 per year. Election Looming. Answers please.

Posted: 18 Feb 2010 05:12 AM PST

So, I may not be the South London press and I might not get paid, and I haven't been to Journalist School (see Jason Cobb's recent comment battle on the SLP), but this blog has a fair old readership now, so I think it's fair to point out, once again, that the former Lilian Baylis site is costing Lambeth taxpayers £380,000 per year to maintain, there's been no progress in terms of developing it or selling it to a community organisation or private buyer, and there's an election coming up.

Back on October 22nd 2009, I sent a query about the former Lilian Baylis site to Steve Reed, asking, "Has the council issued statement on status of former Lilian Baylis bid by ANC? Rumour says the bid is off, but pls confirm." I received a Direct Message from Steve Reed, advising that the council were, "Still negotiating a consortium to run the old school site, details public soon, intending it shd represent the whole community not just part".

Fair enough. I can wait, I thought. After all, the thing only kicked off in 2005, so we wouldn't want to rush matters. (For a comprehensive post, and history, see my catchup on the definitive history of the former Lilian Baylis.)

Eventually, on the 14th December 2009, Lambeth council issued a decision to decommission the project from having as its focus the All Nations Church (ANC). Reasons as to why they did this vary slightly, depending on whom you ask. There was some local opposition to the ANC (a faith group) having the "lead partner" stake in buying a Council building that is currently essentially a community resource. However, there are also rumours that the ANC were, by last year, only able to buy the building for a considerably smaller amount than they had originally offered (bear in mind that the Council would have given them a favourable rate, compared to the land's market value). The Council state in a report dated 14th December, (this one is quite an interesting document which I'll dissect below), "Ultimately, the terms of the offers by ANC presented an unacceptable risk of challenge to the council and other elements of the proposed leasehold terms were also unacceptable in principle." and also, "The offer proposed by ANC entailed a substantial discount below market value, which the council could not justify through demonstartion of public benefit."

Remember back in February 2009 (see old council .pdf here) that the "hub" group were to comprise the ANC, the Sport's Action Zone (SAZ) and Ethelred Nursery. It appears now that the ANC have been "dropped" from official plans (although, apparently, "The decision not to progress negotiations with ANC does not prejudice or preclude ANC’s involvement in alternative delivery arrangements."). However, the new December 14th plan is to try and move forward with both Sports Action Zone (Kate Hoey is the patron of this organisation) and the Ethelred Nursery. It is highly unlikely that either of these organisations have any money (SAZ isn't even a legal entity), so...

What might Lambeth Council do?

Let's see what they suggest in the December 14th plan:

1. "Pursuit of a maximised social and community outcomes approach is likely to be an overall capital cost to the council council, i.e., the cost of development would be greater than any capital receipt."

Translation: It costs money to pay for community facilities, when we wouldn't make money from those facilities. And in any case, we're not terribly interested in providing Leisure facilities. See Jason Cobb's post on the privatisation of Lambeth leisure facilities.

2. "The overall capital gain to the council would be maximised if the site were disposed on the open market."

Translation: Actually, we'd make more money (and we don't have much of this right now), if we were to sell the development.

[I can see that this one is going to be a bit troublesome, come the election, since the Lib Dems wanted to sell the building off, before they changed their minds, a few years ago... So, you can see the accusations flying, Labour: "you wanted to sell", Lib Dem: "you said you'd develop, Lab: "you changed your mind", Lib Dem: "we didn't exactly... but in any case, you want to sell now", blah, blah, blah, let's pre-empt that boring old battle...]

3. "Potentially, the overall capital gain might be greater if other sites in the area were included in the redevelopment process allowing for the reconfiguration and consolidation of community outcomes on particular sites and realisation of the full development value of other sites."

Translation: We could make even more money, if we were to sell off some other bits of land. (This might allude to the Beaufoy, Lollard St playground and Kerrin point (or all of them). Would be useful to know the proposals because it's a far reaching statement.

4. "Note that the listed building status conferred on the site restricts the scope for development and agree for officers to investigate how this might be addressed in order to enable suitable development options." and "The listing of buildings of this period is not without controversy and presents a number of problems and constraints in this instance."

Translation: Let's try to get the building delisted, because then we can sell it off for more money, and don't have to worry about English Heritage. Interestingly, even the car park is listed (a result of some kind of ancient Council vendetta). We need to get all of this stuff delisted ASAP, so that we can get this building off our hands.

5. "To date the council have resisted pursuing the possible delisting of the site on the basis that there is little prospect of the Secretary of State agreeing. The council failed to stop the listing originally and no new evidence has been forthcoming to challenge the English Heritage assessment of the building’s special interest."

Translation: We're a bit doomed, really!

6. "Increasing this estimate by construction inflation and factoring in the likely further deterioration in the condition of the property, a capital investment of as much as £10m may be required to bring the buildings back into an acceptable condition."

Translation: We're even more doomed. These buildings cost a fortune to repair, we have no money, and nobody will pay enough for them, considering that they're listed, and we can't figure out how to delist them, and the Secretary of State will never do it. Wah!

7. "The site and buildings are insured as part of the council’s building insurance contract which includes a regular programme of health and safety inspection. It is possible that future inspections will identify works which would need to completed in order to ensure continuity of use and as a consequence may affect the Council’s ability to maintain the continued insurance of the property."

Translation: If the building fails a health and safety inspection, we don't have enough money to fix it, and nobody will be able to use it at all. We need to sell it off really really quickly.

8. "Since 2005 SAZ have been successful in attracting considerable external investment (Nike, Barclays Spaces for Sports, Football Foundation) and voluntary investment which has helped to transform the complex into a successful community facility. SAZ is negotiating currently to bring in up to £4m of capital funding for a community basketball initiative, with an ambition to provide a basketball facility and venue of international standard."

Translation: Even though the building might fail a health and safety inspection, we really like this SAZ organisation, and they're good for the area. Also, they're backed by Kate Hoey, so it would be politically embarrassing to try and dispose of them.

9. "Over the past month more detailed work has taken place across Council departments to specify the outcomes sought from the site, in particular with Cultural Services with view to a significant sports/leisure focus of activity on the site and with CYPS around education, young persons and play facilities, including provision for a new ENCC."

Translation: We installed a 12 metre (yes, that is right) swimming pool. What else do you want?

---

To be fair, at the 14th December meeting, Cllr Ashley Lumsden (Opposition leader), ask whether the Council outcomes stated in the December 14th 2009 report were the same ones as desired by the residents. Well, you may indeed ask! I certainly would.

Make of that what you will, but I doubt any movement (in terms of either sale or significant development) will be made in, ooh, let's say, the next 12 months (even with a change in administration). I'll write another post next year, around February 2011, keeping you up to date.

The question is, Cllr Reed, who is the consortium you said would be running the old school site? The clock is ticking, and the election looms....

[Believe it or not, I had not read Peter Walker's Guardian article here, in which he seems utterly unaware that the current administration has suggested selling the site (and possibly other sites) to maximise capital, but it's a prime example of why hyperlocal bloggers do possess a much broader picture than some of the national press.]


Friday, 5 February 2010

Demon Sheep running for Senator in California

Fabulously mad video from Carly Fiorina (ex Chief Exec of HP) accusing her Republican rival for the Senatorial nomination in Californian of being a devil sheep.

 

 

I'm lost for words at how good this is.

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

Thursday, 21 January 2010

Blue Rubicon visits Facebook

How good is the Taliban internal communications department?

I ask because they have issued a code of conduct for their members.

As anyone in internal communications will tell you - it's getting people to read and internalise this sort of guidance that's difficult.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/world/asia/21taliban.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

From the New York Times:

The effort to change the Taliban’s image began in earnest last May when Mullah Omar disseminated his new code of conduct. The New York Times obtained a copy of the document through a Taliban spokesman. A version of the new code was authenticated last summer by NATO intelligence after a copy was seized during a raid and its contents corroborated using human intelligence, according to a senior NATO intelligence official.

The version sent to The Times is a 69-point document ranging from how to treat local people, how to treat prisoners, what to do with captured enemy equipment and when to execute captives. Much of the document deals with the Taliban chain of command and limits the decisions that field commanders can make on their own. The document exhorts insurgents to live and work in harmony with local people.

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

Thursday, 7 January 2010

London Data Store goes live

The GLA have released lots of data for people to mash up and use as they please. From first look there's interesting data on alcohol related admissions to hospital, fires and lots of useful crime data.

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Google goggles

Lots of ideas spring to mind about how to use this.

Most obviously while out shopping to do price comparisons.

http://www.google.com/mobile/goggles/

Posted via email from Rob's posterous