Reply to: European Parliament Sets out its Vision

[Bean]

21% said no. That's not the same as 66% saying no.

I agree.

Whorty however, was proposing something just as wrong.

HTH

[WTFH]

From the second page

In the context of the renewed debate on the future of Europe, 47% of European citizens feel that their voice counts in the EU

So that means 53% - e.g. the majority do not feel the EU represents them

It just gets better the more you read.

An increase of eight percentage points now means 33% of all citizens have a positive image of the European Parliament.

So that would be 66% who do not then?

The vast majority really?

But for it to be a true comparison, you would only count those who actually respond to the question, i.e. those that voted....
(Nice try though)
Even the EU didn't try and count all the citizens, who didn't respond to their questions...

An increase of eight percentage points now means 33% of all citizens have a positive image of the European Parliament. This increase is coupled with a similar decrease of 7 percentage points to a total of 21% of citizens who have a negative image of the EP, while 42% of those surveyed still have a neutral image.

21% said no. That's not the same as 66% saying no.

[Mordac]

Does us a favour oPM, work out the %'s for those in the UK that support Brexit, compared to those that don't (to keep the data comparative, you count 17.4m in support and all the others in the UK as not in support).

You see, anyone can play with numbers to support a narrative. Seems there are more people in the EU that positively support the EU than there are in the UK that positively support Brexit.

If only they could be arsed to get out of bed and vote.

[WTFH]

But for it to be a true comparison, you would only count those who actually respond to the question, i.e. those that voted....
(Nice try though)

Even the EU didn't try and count all the citizens, who didn't respond to their questions...

No, but they counted all the ones who did respond.

Just cause you live in a binary world doesn't mean the rest of us do.

[Bean]

Does us a favour oPM, work out the %'s for those in the UK that support Brexit, compared to those that don't (to keep the data comparative, you count 17.4m in support and all the others in the UK as not in support).

You see, anyone can play with numbers to support a narrative. Seems there are more people in the EU that positively support the EU than there are in the UK that positively support Brexit.

But for it to be a true comparison, you would only count those who actually respond to the question, i.e. those that voted....
(Nice try though)

Even the EU didn't try and count all the citizens, who didn't respond to their questions...

[Whorty]

From the second page

In the context of the renewed debate on the future of Europe, 47% of European citizens feel that their voice counts in the EU

So that means 53% - e.g. the majority do not feel the EU represents them

It just gets better the more you read.

An increase of eight percentage points now means 33% of all citizens have a positive image of the European Parliament.

So that would be 66% who do not then?

The vast majority really?

Does us a favour oPM, work out the %'s for those in the UK that support Brexit, compared to those that don't (to keep the data comparative, you count 17.4m in support and all the others in the UK as not in support).

You see, anyone can play with numbers to support a narrative. Seems there are more people in the EU that positively support the EU than there are in the UK that positively support Brexit.

[meridian]

European Parliament Sets out its Vision

An increase of eight percentage points now means 33% of all citizens have a positive image of the European Parliament.

So that would be 66% who do not then?

The vast majority really?

You’ve deliberately missed the 42% neutral. Did that not fit your narrative?

For context and comparison, what are the percentage of U.K. citizens that have a positive image of the U.K. Parliament?

[original PM]

From the second page

In the context of the renewed debate on the future of Europe, 47% of European citizens feel that their voice counts in the EU

So that means 53% - e.g. the majority do not feel the EU represents them

It just gets better the more you read.

An increase of eight percentage points now means 33% of all citizens have a positive image of the European Parliament.

So that would be 66% who do not then?

The vast majority really?

[darmstadt]

Thing is DP's OP is actually not a Vision Statement - it is a detailed document about what they believe the future of the EU will be

A vision statement should be short and sweet.

So The EU's vision statement should be something like

Complete Totalitarian Control

As seen in this golden nugget from Junker

"STATE OF THE UNION - JUNCKER
Encourages all Member States to join the Banking Union to ensure that all banks operate under the same rules and under the same supervision." of ze germanz

Is that why the document is entitled "European Parliamentsets out its vision"?

This document is a living document. It takes note ofthe common ground reached on different visions onthe Future of Europe in key policy fields

[original PM]

Thing is DP's OP is actually not a Vision Statement - it is a detailed document about what they believe the future of the EU will be

A vision statement should be short and sweet.

So The EU's vision statement should be something like

Complete Totalitarian Control

As seen in this golden nugget from Junker

"STATE OF THE UNION - JUNCKER
Encourages all Member States to join the Banking Union to ensure that all banks operate under the same rules and under the same supervision." of ze germanz

[Whorty]

My mission statement : Galactic Emperor and stuff the rest of you. (8 words)

Unfortunately I have nothing to back this up or any idea how I might achieve this (however I think having a death star might be useful) unlike the organisations you quoted which probably do have a strategic plan aimed at delivering their mission statements.

Perfect ... you just need a strategy now for getting that death star. You'll need to raise some funds first I'd think so you'll need a plan for that. Then you'll need some engineers to design and build it for you. You might want to give them a steer on how to design out the fatal flaw that previous death stars seemed to come with

[Whorty]

I would agree with OPM that mission statements themselves are largely a collection of jargon that a face value is meaningless, and it is meaningless if there is nothing supporting that statement - which is where I agree with Whorty. giving an organisation direction, a mission if you will, is the responsibility of the board of directors. It is they that ultimately give the organisation purpose and direction which they hope will keep them ahead of the competition and expand their market share. However, that vison, that mission, must be flexible enough to be able to deal with disrupters. which means that any vision/mission statement that is cast in stone is, as OPM said tulip.

The problem, not only with Brexit, but with successive governments in the UK is that is our mission statement swings wildly depending on who is in power. Specifically, in relation to the Brexit question I would agree that our leaders, our politicians were complacent in mot having a plan, a mission, a vision of what, or where they see the UK fitting into the global market, i.e. can we continue as a financial services provider, do we need a wider manufacturing base, do we focus more on technology type industries. All these things governments can influence through incentives which are aligned to their Vision of what they want the UK to look like in 5 to 10 years time.

The government is responsible for running UK PLC. Unfortunately it isn't run as a business, its run as a social experiment for which ever party is currently in power with the sole purpose of retaining that power.

For starters, you're agreeing with the wrong thing ... oPM is talking Vision statements, you're talking Mission statements. They are not the same.

I'm idle, so quickly googled someone else definition of the two :

"A Mission Statement defines the company's business, its objectives and its approach to reach those objectives. A Vision Statement describes the desired future position of the company."

FFS guys, come on, this is basic stuff. You run your own businesses, you should know this! At the very least you should understand the vision and mission of your clients and hence what you can offer them as a service to help them achieve this.

[Yorkie62]

Ok explain to me what your vision was 5 years ago and then explain how close you are to your vision now.

Here are some examples of Vison Statements

Human Rights Campaign: Equality for everyone (3)

Feeding America: A hunger-free America (4 words)

Alzheimer’s Association: A world without Alzheimer’s (4)

Oxfam: A just world without poverty (5 words)

National Multiple Sclerosis Society: A World Free of MS (5)

The Nature Conservancy: To leave a sustainable world for future generations. (8)

Make-A-Wish: That people everywhere will share the power of a wish (10)



Do you really want me to go on?

My mission statement : Galactic Emperor and stuff the rest of you. (8 words)

Unfortunately I have nothing to back this up or any idea how I might achieve this (however I think having a death star might be useful) unlike the organisations you quoted which probably do have a strategic plan aimed at delivering their mission statements.

[Whorty]

Ok explain to me what your vision was 5 years ago and then explain how close you are to your vision now.

Here are some examples of Vison Statements

Human Rights Campaign: Equality for everyone (3)

Feeding America: A hunger-free America (4 words)

Alzheimer’s Association: A world without Alzheimer’s (4)

Oxfam: A just world without poverty (5 words)

National Multiple Sclerosis Society: A World Free of MS (5)

The Nature Conservancy: To leave a sustainable world for future generations. (8)

Make-A-Wish: That people everywhere will share the power of a wish (10)



Do you really want me to go on?

Explain to me why (excluding the last one as that does sound like tulip) these are not valid visions for these organisations?

I'll take the MS one for starters ... for them to have a vision of a world without MS seems valid. The vision doesn't explain how this will be achieved, or by whom or when .... it's a vision

To achieve this vision the organisation will have strategies aligned to this vision, one might be to get £1m in funding to put towards stem cell research, another might be to get a high profile A list celeb on board to promote the illness and what sufferers go through.

The fact you don't understand why these vision statements are valid says more about you than the statements. Your lack of intelligence is not in doubt on this forum, and posts like the above just confirm this.

My vision was to be mortgage free (I achieved this by age 37).

My new personal vision is to be able to retire by 55 and live the same kind of lifestyle as I do today.

Note that in my vision is doesn't say how I will do this. It doesn't say I'll rob a bank, win the lottery, invent something that the world wants, or just continue to be a successful contractor raking in high fees. The 'how' will be my strategies to reaching my vision.

You see, quite simple when you think about it. Go on fella, have a try yourself.

Here's a free helping hand, use it as your strategy if you like "To be less of a victim and be less scared of anyone different to me" .... how you get there is up to you, but you could do worse than having this as your vision for the future

[Yorkie62]

Tch should have said client co...

Ok right so a few things to clear up

Vision Statements are bollocks - they are made up by junior exec's to try and impress senior exec with their ability to 'live and breathe' the company. Any under junior exec does not think these things are worth wiping their arse on.

Understand that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money not to part of some jumped up prick's vision (which will only be for 2 years until they fook off somewhere else)

Also understand that most people do not have 'brand loyalty' nor do they buy into your vision statement.

Most people will use a company to purchase a certain thing at a certain time - that is the beginning and the end of the relationship.

I know there are people who love Apple and have completely bought into that brand but the reality is they are simple somewhat delusional about the impact it is having on their lives

WWDC 2018: Tech Addiction and the Paradox of Apple'''s '''Screen Time''' Tools | WIRED


In reality a vision statement is just a collection of words designed to make someone appear clever and involved when in reality they are simply empty words and hot air which account for nothing.

That's one way to look at it .... you're wrong, but if it makes you feel good then you carry on fella.

If there is no vision, how do you or the workers know what they are trying to achieve. That's the problem with Brexit, no vision of the future long term end state for the UK, but as a Brexiter I can see why you don't think visions have value. I'm sure you're much happier just bumbling on, hoping that something good will happen at some stage and you'll end up somewhere nice

I would agree with OPM that mission statements themselves are largely a collection of jargon that a face value is meaningless, and it is meaningless if there is nothing supporting that statement - which is where I agree with Whorty. giving an organisation direction, a mission if you will, is the responsibility of the board of directors. It is they that ultimately give the organisation purpose and direction which they hope will keep them ahead of the competition and expand their market share. However, that vison, that mission, must be flexible enough to be able to deal with disrupters. which means that any vision/mission statement that is cast in stone is, as OPM said tulip.

The problem, not only with Brexit, but with successive governments in the UK is that is our mission statement swings wildly depending on who is in power. Specifically, in relation to the Brexit question I would agree that our leaders, our politicians were complacent in mot having a plan, a mission, a vision of what, or where they see the UK fitting into the global market, i.e. can we continue as a financial services provider, do we need a wider manufacturing base, do we focus more on technology type industries. All these things governments can influence through incentives which are aligned to their Vision of what they want the UK to look like in 5 to 10 years time.

The government is responsible for running UK PLC. Unfortunately it isn't run as a business, its run as a social experiment for which ever party is currently in power with the sole purpose of retaining that power.