Best Of

'The BBC has announced a landmark deal with YouTube, which will see the corporation make content that is tailor-made for the video streaming service.

The broadcaster has previously used YouTube, which is owned by Google, to promote clips and trailers for its own shows in the UK.

But the new move will see the BBC make content primarily aimed at YouTube's digital-native younger audience, although it may also be made available on the BBC's iPlayer and Sounds platforms.

The new programmes will feature adverts when viewed from outside of the UK, generating extra funds for the corporation at a time when its future funding model is being debated.

The content will include a mixture of entertainment, news and sport - starting with the Winter Olympics in February.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0q4521pg28o

ITV has also been using YouTube but so far no purpose-made content sfaict. Just this morning I was watching the pilot episode of Endeavour.

As for the Winter Olympics, I suspect dumping half of it onto YouTube will cause sighs of relief for the channel controllers. It is also a reminder that Netflix is said to regard YouTube and not the other streamers as its main competitor, and Netflix has had limited success with live events, although they will no doubt catch up fast.

BARB thinks that YouTube already has a higher monthly reach than any of the other broadcast groups it tracks.

https://www.barb.co.uk/four-screen-viewing/?period=202512

I don't know whether any on here know of Jeffrey Sachs but he really is worth listening to. I've just come to the end of the piece i posted earlier and he not only predicted exactly what the problems for Europe would be when Trump took over but what Europeans shold do about it. Basically ditch them permanently and understand Russia. Exactly the opposite of what Starmer has done.

As I said earlier Mark Carney has the answer with the merging of the trans pacfic and EU into one trading block without the US or China who are not members of the trans pacific block

No need for rejoining the EU debate either

The question is are the EU leaders upto the challenge ?

Sort of but Carney has included China who he has just signed a major trading agreement with

That was one aspect of his speech which was strangely off.

He quoted "Trans Pacific Partnership", which does not exists because the USA withdrew and killed it, which gave us CPTPP instead - of which China is not a member.

I hope that the UK is engaged with Canada in building CPTPP-EU links, as we have a veto over it from the CPTPP side. That is a bargaining chip in our relationship with Brussels.

I think Carney is after "links", not a merger. Institutionally and philosophically the EU and the CPTPP are very different.

Big_G's idea that it's an alternative to the EU is a bit misguided.

Not mine, but Mark Carney yesterday delivered it in Davos

Where did he call it an alternative to the EU ?

He didn't and I didn't

He said the trans pacific and EU should merge to create a trading block of 1.5 billion people

That merger would de facto include the UK

But would that be a block that reduces tariffs, or a single market with shared rules that allowed admin-free trade?

The first is a lot thinner and less useful than the second, but it's hard to see how you get the second without all the politics stuff that brings some out in hives.

Carney certainly spoke about it as a trading block

The other take away from the era of Trump, Putin, Orban etc. is the need for flexible alliances that can work like Lego.

If we had an EU defence policy, Orban and others would be vetoing any action on Ukraine, for example.

A sensible response to that is a looser structure, where one country dropping out over a particular issue doesn’t collapse the whole thing. Different coalitions for different issues.

That is what Carney was suggesting, but such an approach has its limits. Look at the time it has taken for the Coalition of the Willing to come to with a plan for assisting post-ceasefire Ukraine. It's very slow. You are herding cats on every issue.

You need some sort of system with centralised executive authority to be able to react rapidly and decisively in a crisis situation. I don't know the details of how NATO works, and how far the authority of SACEUR extends in responding to a Russian incursion into Estonia, for example, but I think we need to think about pooling executive authority to be able to react better to events, while having more distributed authority for those issues where there is less urgency to decide on the details.

"Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
Westminster Voting Intention:

RFM: 31% (=)
CON: 21% (=)
LAB: 20% (+1)
LDM: 13% (+1)
GRN: 11% (-1)
SNP: 2% (=)

Via @Moreincommon, 16-19 Jan.
Changes w/ 10-13 Jan."

https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2013891339063111692

So looks like the main beneficiaries of Jenrick's defection were Starmer and Davey, with Labour and LDs both up 1% with MiC in a poll taken entirely after the Jenrick defection and the Tories and Reform unchanged.

Greens down with MiC though in contrast to Yougov (who also had no bounce for Reform from gaining Jenrick)

Far too early to read the fallout of defections in the polls but interesting the Greens took a seat off Reform yesterday

https://x.com/i/status/2013944937159528656

Advance also stood and took some Reform votes and looks like was Labour and LD tactical voting for the Greens who were second in that seat last year to Reform

It looks like conservative and labour tactical voting to. keep out reform