Oxfam is calling for a 99% tax on billionaires to help fund a COVID vaccination expansion effort in the world's poorest countries where rates can be as low as 7%.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Mr. 1992, the BBC blew £30m on the concept of The Voice (just the concept) and threw away F1 despite it being one of only two sporting events to hit targets (the other being Wimbledon, though F1 was more successful).
I am unpersuaded by the notion the BBC can't make obviously stupid broadcasting decisions.
I bash the BBC a lot, but sports are really tricky. The rights are very expensive and so is covering them live. Again, due to the unique way it is funded, they have to be seen to do sport, but not spend too much, so again they get stuck in the middle of its there but mot as good as the dedicated outlets.
Again the problem is a lot of their sport is crowbarred in around everything else, where as Sky have a whole dedicated channel just for F1.
The only time sport is front and centre on the BBC is something like Wimbledon or World Cup football. Obviously it isn't even now due to the rights deal at the Olympics.
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
The Tories may scrape a 1992 style narrow majority or most seats a la 2017 under Sunak.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
Was 2019 down to Johnson’s skill as a politician, a popular appeal that will never die - or the fact he got it through lying, and is now known as biggest liar in political history?
Mr. 1992, the BBC blew £30m on the concept of The Voice (just the concept) and threw away F1 despite it being one of only two sporting events to hit targets (the other being Wimbledon, though F1 was more successful).
I am unpersuaded by the notion the BBC can't make obviously stupid broadcasting decisions.
The Beeb reminds me of the Army during The Iraqi war. British army, great history, seriously talented individuals and punching above their weight in many ways. They and their cheerleaders were very happy to pronounce that they knew how to deal with insurgents - Malaya and Northern Ireland, we’ve done it all and really don’t need lessons from American upstarts.
Thing is war and insurgencies had changed and the Army didn’t have the new skills embedded in them yet, didn’t want to listen to new ideas, had a bit of an arrogance because they were great once and it cost them badly.
I can see the top chaps at the beeb in a bit of a circle-jerk still fighting the old war the old way and telling each other “but we’re the BBC, best in the world”…..
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its become a lot less relevant now as most games are not at 3.00 pm on a saturday.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Fans of Man City now...
Perhaps it’s too soon to say, but I don’t think City’s fan base has changed at all since 2008.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
If this happens will you then accept that it may be in the best interest of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign?
Plenty of Tory MPs seem less flappy this than last week.
Point to lack of bombshell Sunday revelations, and tearoom chitchat this morn around "disappointment not white heat" on the doorsteps.. "1.5% have gone public"
The Invisible Assailant hasn’t been using Sundays though, they prefer weekdays. Sunday week ago was perfectly quiet, anyone saying Boris in mortal danger was being laughed at. Maybe Invisible Assailant think there is more cut through weekedays late afternoon than weekends?
Sounds like MPs are just bottling it and trying to find any excuse - as the majority of PB always expected they would - the only beneficiary of supporting a lame duck are for the opposition who really are going to be listened to and taken seriously now by voters.In other words, Big G is the loser in this delay, MoonRabbit a winner.
For my out in 2022 bet where I double my £50 anytime this year is a winner. 🤑
I accept that it is increasingly likely that Boris will hang on until May and that my belief he would be out in the next few weeks is disappearing mainly due to the indecision of his mps who ultimately have to unite to act
It’s interesting that if the Invisible Assailant (which I think I shall shorten to Norman after Leon saying it’s like what Norman bates done to victims in the shower) doesn’t put anything out, all the great and good of UK investigative journalism isn’t finding anything! That’s why the Sunday’s are so quiet. You would think it would be quite a decent scoop for them. How rubbish are they 🙂
So much for people being employed in media for their contacts, their journalistic skills for finding a scoop! It’s all come from Norman, nothing from the rest of them. Totally embarrassment for The Sun, they even employ people who were at the parties.
it's odd. Both Doms are saying they have spoken to someone who warned the PM in writing it was a party. What is that person now thinking? Gonna wait for Sue Gray's report, or talk to her?
Like I said yesterday, the most dangerous thing for Boris Johnson right now, is not to tell Sue the truth.
Mr. 1992, the BBC blew £30m on the concept of The Voice (just the concept) and threw away F1 despite it being one of only two sporting events to hit targets (the other being Wimbledon, though F1 was more successful).
I am unpersuaded by the notion the BBC can't make obviously stupid broadcasting decisions.
The Beeb reminds me of the Army during The Iraqi war. British army, great history, seriously talented individuals and punching above their weight in many ways. They and their cheerleaders were very happy to pronounce that they knew how to deal with insurgents - Malaya and Northern Ireland, we’ve done it all and really don’t need lessons from American upstarts.
Thing is war and insurgencies had changed and the Army didn’t have the new skills embedded in them yet, didn’t want to listen to new ideas, had a bit of an arrogance because they were great once and it cost them badly.
I can see the top chaps at the beeb in a bit of a circle-jerk still fighting the old war the old way and telling each other “but we’re the BBC, best in the world”…..
It more like the British military going up against the Chinese.... massively over powered in shear numbers and firepower, and yes the SAS might still be better than the Chinese equivalent, but also the game has changed. Things like Cyber warfare the Chinese as good as any.
Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Disney have all the Avengers and Marvel heros assembled for a dust up....the BBC have sent the nice chap from the bodyguard.
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
The Tories may scrape a 1992 style narrow majority or most seats a la 2017 under Sunak.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
Was 2019 down to Johnson’s skill as a politician, a popular appeal that will never die - or the fact he got it through lying, and is now known as biggest liar in political history?
Neither, it was down to the lack of skill of the opposition and the un-electability of the LOTO.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Fans of Man City now...
Perhaps it’s too soon to say, but I don’t think City’s fan base has changed at all since 2008.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
If this happens will you then accept that it may be in the best interest of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign?
If even Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley are lost yes
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
If this happens will you then accept that it may be in the best interest of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign?
If even Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley are lost yes
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its become a lot less relevant now as most games are not at 3.00 pm on a saturday.
The blackout is there to protect the lower leagues, not the PL.
Plenty of Tory MPs seem less flappy this than last week.
Point to lack of bombshell Sunday revelations, and tearoom chitchat this morn around "disappointment not white heat" on the doorsteps.. "1.5% have gone public"
The Invisible Assailant hasn’t been using Sundays though, they prefer weekdays. Sunday week ago was perfectly quiet, anyone saying Boris in mortal danger was being laughed at. Maybe Invisible Assailant think there is more cut through weekedays late afternoon than weekends?
Sounds like MPs are just bottling it and trying to find any excuse - as the majority of PB always expected they would - the only beneficiary of supporting a lame duck are for the opposition who really are going to be listened to and taken seriously now by voters.In other words, Big G is the loser in this delay, MoonRabbit a winner.
For my out in 2022 bet where I double my £50 anytime this year is a winner. 🤑
I accept that it is increasingly likely that Boris will hang on until May and that my belief he would be out in the next few weeks is disappearing mainly due to the indecision of his mps who ultimately have to unite to act
It’s interesting that if the Invisible Assailant (which I think I shall shorten to Norman after Leon saying it’s like what Norman bates done to victims in the shower) doesn’t put anything out, all the great and good of UK investigative journalism isn’t finding anything! That’s why the Sunday’s are so quiet. You would think it would be quite a decent scoop for them. How rubbish are they 🙂
So much for people being employed in media for their contacts, their journalistic skills for finding a scoop! It’s all come from Norman, nothing from the rest of them. Totally embarrassment for The Sun, they even employ people who were at the parties.
it's odd. Both Doms are saying they have spoken to someone who warned the PM in writing it was a party. What is that person now thinking? Gonna wait for Sue Gray's report, or talk to her?
Like I said yesterday, the most dangerous thing for Boris Johnson right now, is not to tell Sue the truth.
Will the report contain attendees?
But the truth is: I knew there was a party. In which case he goes.
If he says: I had no idea there was a party, then a. nobody says otherwise, and with one bound he was free!
Or b. Someone says Actually you knew and here's the email, he goes and everybody says Liar liar pants on fire. But we knew that anyway and there is no perjury penalty for lying to SG.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
If this happens will you then accept that it may be in the best interest of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign?
If even Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley are lost yes
It would have to be very very very bad then, not just very bad?
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its become a lot less relevant now as most games are not at 3.00 pm on a saturday.
The blackout is there to protect the lower leagues, not the PL.
That maybe so, but I don't think most lower league fans are NOT going to watch say Swindon vs Port Vale because they could be at home watching Southampton vs Brighton.
Mr. 1992, the BBC blew £30m on the concept of The Voice (just the concept) and threw away F1 despite it being one of only two sporting events to hit targets (the other being Wimbledon, though F1 was more successful).
I am unpersuaded by the notion the BBC can't make obviously stupid broadcasting decisions.
The Beeb reminds me of the Army during The Iraqi war. British army, great history, seriously talented individuals and punching above their weight in many ways. They and their cheerleaders were very happy to pronounce that they knew how to deal with insurgents - Malaya and Northern Ireland, we’ve done it all and really don’t need lessons from American upstarts.
Thing is war and insurgencies had changed and the Army didn’t have the new skills embedded in them yet, didn’t want to listen to new ideas, had a bit of an arrogance because they were great once and it cost them badly.
I can see the top chaps at the beeb in a bit of a circle-jerk still fighting the old war the old way and telling each other “but we’re the BBC, best in the world”…..
and yes the SAS might still be better than the Chinese equivalent
That's the sort of complacency that leads to fiascos like Basra and Helmand.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
But, as has been said here, it’s not like Netflix and Disney+ have this worked out yet. They’re not making a profit yet. There’s been this huge change in technology and everyone’s still coming to terms with that.
So, in a period of uncertainty, what should you do with one of the nation’s greatest assets? Give it stability so it can thrive while others are floundering, or make it try to answer questions that no one else has yet solved?
Plenty of Tory MPs seem less flappy this than last week.
Point to lack of bombshell Sunday revelations, and tearoom chitchat this morn around "disappointment not white heat" on the doorsteps.. "1.5% have gone public"
The Invisible Assailant hasn’t been using Sundays though, they prefer weekdays. Sunday week ago was perfectly quiet, anyone saying Boris in mortal danger was being laughed at. Maybe Invisible Assailant think there is more cut through weekedays late afternoon than weekends?
Sounds like MPs are just bottling it and trying to find any excuse - as the majority of PB always expected they would - the only beneficiary of supporting a lame duck are for the opposition who really are going to be listened to and taken seriously now by voters.In other words, Big G is the loser in this delay, MoonRabbit a winner.
For my out in 2022 bet where I double my £50 anytime this year is a winner. 🤑
I accept that it is increasingly likely that Boris will hang on until May and that my belief he would be out in the next few weeks is disappearing mainly due to the indecision of his mps who ultimately have to unite to act
It’s interesting that if the Invisible Assailant (which I think I shall shorten to Norman after Leon saying it’s like what Norman bates done to victims in the shower) doesn’t put anything out, all the great and good of UK investigative journalism isn’t finding anything! That’s why the Sunday’s are so quiet. You would think it would be quite a decent scoop for them. How rubbish are they 🙂
So much for people being employed in media for their contacts, their journalistic skills for finding a scoop! It’s all come from Norman, nothing from the rest of them. Totally embarrassment for The Sun, they even employ people who were at the parties.
it's odd. Both Doms are saying they have spoken to someone who warned the PM in writing it was a party. What is that person now thinking? Gonna wait for Sue Gray's report, or talk to her?
Like I said yesterday, the most dangerous thing for Boris Johnson right now, is not to tell Sue the truth.
Will the report contain attendees?
But the truth is: I knew there was a party. In which case he goes.
If he says: I had no idea there was a party, then a. nobody says otherwise, and with one bound he was free!
Or b. Someone says Actually you knew and here's the email, he goes and everybody says Liar liar pants on fire. But we knew that anyway and there is no perjury penalty for lying to SG.
So why tell da troof?
Depends on who attended it - I'm not clear on this and no-one else is it seems. If it was purely No 10 workers then he will argue it was a work gathering, i.e. within the realm of work, not a party. This is why Stratton giggled and squirmed isn't it. Firstly she knew the rules were absurd and weren't enforced anyway and secondly some of the journalists in front of her knew about it and so were already "in" on it.
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
The Tories may scrape a 1992 style narrow majority or most seats a la 2017 under Sunak.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
Was 2019 down to Johnson’s skill as a politician, a popular appeal that will never die - or the fact he got it through lying, and is now known as biggest liar in political history?
Neither, it was down to the lack of skill of the opposition and the un-electability of the LOTO.
Nonsense! It was down to the genius of Dominic Cummings and the political crossdressing flux of Brexit!
No, that’s nonsense - it was down to the ability of Conservative Party to change government before elections and campaign against their unpopular former selves.
No, that’s nonsense, if the Tory’s hadn’t swallowed up virtually all Farage Party they would never have got the big majority.
Oh okay. It’s probably mixture of everything mentioned in this discussion?
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its become a lot less relevant now as most games are not at 3.00 pm on a saturday.
The blackout is there to protect the lower leagues, not the PL.
That maybe so, but I don't think most lower league fans are NOT going to watch say Swindon vs Port Vale because they could be at home watching Southampton vs Brighton.
Plenty of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal games at 3pm. It might not make a big difference, but I don't think it hurts to keep it. It's not like those teams aren't on TV enough anyway.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Looking at Greater Manchester, there are a couple of safe seats that might be available next time - Rochdale and Blackley. There are plenty of marginals but would you risk a footballer when there might be disgruntled fans of other clubs? Of course, Burnham will want a seat too
I don't see anything wrong with having a small number of people like Gary Neville parachuted into safe seats - one of the recurring problems with MPs is that too many of them are "professional" politicians; we should ideally have more people who've had successful careers in other walks of life making contributions to balance things out and give other viewpoints. Plus, he'll help with political engagement, even if it's just ABUs voting against him.
I do have an issue with saying he could into the Shadow Cabinet as there's no obvious evidence he could get his head around a complicated brief to the extent needed.
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
The Tories may scrape a 1992 style narrow majority or most seats a la 2017 under Sunak.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
Was 2019 down to Johnson’s skill as a politician, a popular appeal that will never die - or the fact he got it through lying, and is now known as biggest liar in political history?
Neither, it was down to the lack of skill of the opposition and the un-electability of the LOTO.
Nonsense! It was down to the genius of Dominic Cummings and the political crossdressing flux of Brexit!
No, that’s nonsense - it was down to the ability of Conservative Party to change government before elections and campaign against their unpopular former selves.
No, that’s nonsense, if the Tory’s hadn’t swallowed up virtually all Farage Party they would never have got the big majority.
Oh okay. It’s probably mixture of everything mentioned in this discussion?
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Looking at Greater Manchester, there are a couple of safe seats that might be available next time - Rochdale and Blackley. There are plenty of marginals but would you risk a footballer when there might be disgruntled fans of other clubs? Of course, Burnham will want a seat too
I don't see anything wrong with having a small number of people like Gary Neville parachuted into safe seats - one of the recurring problems with MPs is that too many of them are "professional" politicians; we should ideally have more people who've had successful careers in other walks of life making contributions to balance things out and give other viewpoints. Plus, he'll help with political engagement, even if it's just ABUs voting against him.
I do have an issue with saying he could into the Shadow Cabinet as there's no obvious evidence he could get his head around a complicated brief to the extent needed.
IMagine if Mr Rashford were parachuted into a safe-ish seat for the Tories, as an opposition candidate. I'd enjoy seeing the Tory candidate claim that footie chaps should keep out of politics.
Good. He is a super-bright bloke with interesting life experience and would be far, far better than the multitude of no-marks, nonentities and career politicians currently in parliament.
He's been one of the few Labourite voices to argue against restrictions from a leftwing standpoint.
Plenty of Tory MPs seem less flappy this than last week.
Point to lack of bombshell Sunday revelations, and tearoom chitchat this morn around "disappointment not white heat" on the doorsteps.. "1.5% have gone public"
The Invisible Assailant hasn’t been using Sundays though, they prefer weekdays. Sunday week ago was perfectly quiet, anyone saying Boris in mortal danger was being laughed at. Maybe Invisible Assailant think there is more cut through weekedays late afternoon than weekends?
Sounds like MPs are just bottling it and trying to find any excuse - as the majority of PB always expected they would - the only beneficiary of supporting a lame duck are for the opposition who really are going to be listened to and taken seriously now by voters.In other words, Big G is the loser in this delay, MoonRabbit a winner.
For my out in 2022 bet where I double my £50 anytime this year is a winner. 🤑
I accept that it is increasingly likely that Boris will hang on until May and that my belief he would be out in the next few weeks is disappearing mainly due to the indecision of his mps who ultimately have to unite to act
It’s interesting that if the Invisible Assailant (which I think I shall shorten to Norman after Leon saying it’s like what Norman bates done to victims in the shower) doesn’t put anything out, all the great and good of UK investigative journalism isn’t finding anything! That’s why the Sunday’s are so quiet. You would think it would be quite a decent scoop for them. How rubbish are they 🙂
So much for people being employed in media for their contacts, their journalistic skills for finding a scoop! It’s all come from Norman, nothing from the rest of them. Totally embarrassment for The Sun, they even employ people who were at the parties.
it's odd. Both Doms are saying they have spoken to someone who warned the PM in writing it was a party. What is that person now thinking? Gonna wait for Sue Gray's report, or talk to her?
Like I said yesterday, the most dangerous thing for Boris Johnson right now, is not to tell Sue the truth.
Will the report contain attendees?
But the truth is: I knew there was a party. In which case he goes.
If he says: I had no idea there was a party, then a. nobody says otherwise, and with one bound he was free!
Or b. Someone says Actually you knew and here's the email, he goes and everybody says Liar liar pants on fire. But we knew that anyway and there is no perjury penalty for lying to SG.
So why tell da troof?
Depends on who attended it - I'm not clear on this and no-one else is it seems. If it was purely No 10 workers then he will argue it was a work gathering, i.e. within the realm of work, not a party. This is why Stratton giggled and squirmed isn't it. Firstly she knew the rules were absurd and weren't enforced anyway and secondly some of the journalists in front of her knew about it and so were already "in" on it.
If the attendees show people came from afield, other departments, to attend the party, it blows “work gathering for those in situ” instantly out the water.
Any sort of lie to Sue that Norman can then prove, Boris may well save himself from crashing into the ground, have blissful 24hrs with better newspaper headlines. Before crashing into the mountain.
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Indeed that's Nick's position (I double checked with him yesterday).
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Fans of Man City now...
The base hasn't really changed that much, believe it or not.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
Just feels like deja vu to me, polling had Labour 20% ahead in London in April 2018 (including specific local election polling). Although it was the Greens and LDs who overperformed which could happen again.
I can see the Tories getting destroyed by the Lib Dems in Kingston, Richmond, Sutton and Merton although they only have a handful of seats to lose in the first two.
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
The Tories may scrape a 1992 style narrow majority or most seats a la 2017 under Sunak.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
Was 2019 down to Johnson’s skill as a politician, a popular appeal that will never die - or the fact he got it through lying, and is now known as biggest liar in political history?
Neither, it was down to the lack of skill of the opposition and the un-electability of the LOTO.
Nonsense! It was down to the genius of Dominic Cummings and the political crossdressing flux of Brexit!
No, that’s nonsense - it was down to the ability of Conservative Party to change government before elections and campaign against their unpopular former selves.
No, that’s nonsense, if the Tory’s hadn’t swallowed up virtually all Farage Party they would never have got the big majority.
Oh okay. It’s probably mixture of everything mentioned in this discussion?
IMHO Corbyn was the driving force.
Okay. 🙂 we agree it’s all there in the cocktail, just to varying degree? But not a binary answer.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Looking at Greater Manchester, there are a couple of safe seats that might be available next time - Rochdale and Blackley. There are plenty of marginals but would you risk a footballer when there might be disgruntled fans of other clubs? Of course, Burnham will want a seat too
I don't see anything wrong with having a small number of people like Gary Neville parachuted into safe seats - one of the recurring problems with MPs is that too many of them are "professional" politicians; we should ideally have more people who've had successful careers in other walks of life making contributions to balance things out and give other viewpoints. Plus, he'll help with political engagement, even if it's just ABUs voting against him.
I do have an issue with saying he could into the Shadow Cabinet as there's no obvious evidence he could get his head around a complicated brief to the extent needed.
IMagine if Mr Rashford were parachuted into a safe-ish seat for the Tories, as an opposition candidate. I'd enjoy seeing the Tory candidate claim that footie chaps should keep out of politics.
Not all footie chaps are Labour, Frank Lampard is a Tory for example.
However any candidate should at least have some campaigning record for the party first
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
But less than a week ago you were saying that those opposed to plan B measures would stick with the Conservatives because they have nowhere else to go. Now it seems they don't have the Conservatives either.
Masking is not a small practical measure, it is a) pointless theatre which does little or nothing to stop spread of omicron, and b) economically and societally damaging.
And no matter what polling on the matter says, I don't believe it is popular or beneficial for the government. When given the choice, most people don't mask. If they genuinely supported masking, voluntary masking would be much more prevalent.
Masking appears to be more effective against Omicron that against Delta.
How is masking economically and societally damaging? I can see big debates over lockdowns or vaccine passports or compulsory vaccination, but masking produces big benefits at pretty minimal costs.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Fans of Man City now...
The base hasn't really changed that much, believe it or not.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
If this happens will you then accept that it may be in the best interest of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign?
If even Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley are lost yes
It would have to be very very very bad then, not just very bad?
If Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley were lost then that would suggest a Labour majority and the Tories losing over 100 seats.
Chelsea and Fulham and Bromley and Chislehurst and Beckenham for example are not even in the top 100 Labour target seats on current boundaries, only in the top 100-200 Labour target seats. Losing them would suggest 1997 style wipeout
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Looking at Greater Manchester, there are a couple of safe seats that might be available next time - Rochdale and Blackley. There are plenty of marginals but would you risk a footballer when there might be disgruntled fans of other clubs? Of course, Burnham will want a seat too
I don't see anything wrong with having a small number of people like Gary Neville parachuted into safe seats - one of the recurring problems with MPs is that too many of them are "professional" politicians; we should ideally have more people who've had successful careers in other walks of life making contributions to balance things out and give other viewpoints. Plus, he'll help with political engagement, even if it's just ABUs voting against him.
I do have an issue with saying he could into the Shadow Cabinet as there's no obvious evidence he could get his head around a complicated brief to the extent needed.
And your evidence that the present Cabinet can achieve this is?
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Indeed that's Nick's position (I double checked with him yesterday).
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
I think its not a good idea to peg it to a number of positive tests, as this is dependent on other factors than just how much covid is out there. If you had to peg it to something, then hospital admission for covid (not with) would maybe work, or total covid patients. Just doing it for cases make no sense if the idea is to protect the hospitals.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
I missed this. The whole of Plan B, inc mask-wearing and care home restrictions, will expire under the sunset clause 26 Jan.
What is being suggested? That they get parliament to vote on a watered-down Plan B?
Can't see it myself. I'm not expecting any of Plan B to be extended.
They may give guidelines of course but any legal restrictions will be lifted I'm pretty sure.
I hope you are right – but this morning's Torygraph says that masking will be retained in shops and on public transport. Not clear that Labour would vote for that, actually. My sense is that all three major parties are moving against restrictions but we will see.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its become a lot less relevant now as most games are not at 3.00 pm on a saturday.
The blackout is there to protect the lower leagues, not the PL.
That maybe so, but I don't think most lower league fans are NOT going to watch say Swindon vs Port Vale because they could be at home watching Southampton vs Brighton.
That’s exactly the reasoning behind the blackout - that people would rather watch a top flight match on TV, than attend a lower league game.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h Epi to English translation:
"Without a new lockdown there'll be at least 3k deaths/day" = With a bit of WFH advice & masking, we can tough it out
"If schools open there'll be 2k-7k hospitalisations/day" = Do nothing & hospitalisations will peak at ~1k/day - it'll be no problem+
There are tentative signs cases might turn soon" = Cases started falling a week ago & are now dropping 20%/week
"If numbers carry on like this for another week I'll be hopeful the wave has turned" = Case have been falling for several weeks & are now dropping 45%/week
It's hard to understand how these SAGE figures think they're helping by denying reality - the bottom 2 examples here are going on right now and it just makes them look ridiculous. Combined with the top 2, it doesn't make them look like honest brokers of facts and advice.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Looking at Greater Manchester, there are a couple of safe seats that might be available next time - Rochdale and Blackley. There are plenty of marginals but would you risk a footballer when there might be disgruntled fans of other clubs? Of course, Burnham will want a seat too
I don't see anything wrong with having a small number of people like Gary Neville parachuted into safe seats - one of the recurring problems with MPs is that too many of them are "professional" politicians; we should ideally have more people who've had successful careers in other walks of life making contributions to balance things out and give other viewpoints. Plus, he'll help with political engagement, even if it's just ABUs voting against him.
I do have an issue with saying he could into the Shadow Cabinet as there's no obvious evidence he could get his head around a complicated brief to the extent needed.
IMagine if Mr Rashford were parachuted into a safe-ish seat for the Tories, as an opposition candidate. I'd enjoy seeing the Tory candidate claim that footie chaps should keep out of politics.
Slightly unfair - the previous objection was that he should focus on his day job, not that it disqualified him from taking part in politics altogether. It would be easy enough to argue that he couldn't give the job his full attention, and wasn't in touch with the majority of voters in his constituency. Rashford is a much better fit for a safe Labour inner-city seat, although obviously he couldn't be considered for one for a decade to come.
Also, given the recent furore over second jobs for MPs, can you imagine if a top-level footballer became an MP whilst still playing, and had to declare secondary annual earnings of £[tens of millions]? What kind of access would that buy, I wonder?
In a former job the Premier League were a client, they are unlikely to set up their own PL channel, either linear channel or streaming for the following reasons.
1) They don't have the infrastructure to produce the coverage we've come to expect. All PL productions are produced by Sky, BT, and the BBC as domestic rights holders.
2) The PL also don't have infrastructure to set up the billing department to deal with subscriptions, especially when people stop paying.
3) Cash flow, in short, the UK broadcasters pay six months in advance, going D2C will cause huge cash flow problems for the overwhelming majority of clubs, which relates to 2). During the off season, and say during a financial crisis/pandemic, you can guarantee enough people will cancel/stop paying to save money.
They could go to banks/VC etc, cover the initial cash flow problem, but that would cost them to make it unwise.
4) After the fiasco with ITV Sport and lesser extent Setanta, the PL have always had parental guarantees going all the way up to the top, so if Sky, BT Sport, or Amazon UK go mammary glands up, Comcast, BT Group, and Amazon worldwide are on the hook for the money. You won't get that if you are D2C.
5) With worldwide rights now, they monies are NOT split evenly, given the viewers the big clubs get overseas, you'd see pressure for the domestic rights to shared more with the big clubs thanks to the PL having the data for each match as all 380 would go on the channel.
When the PL went PPV during 20/21 Liverpool matches got huge subs, whereas Burnley matches against smaller clubs got 10 subs, so we'd end up like La Liga with Real & Barca get 80% of the TV money.
6) Streaming is unlikely for a decade, not everyone has the speeds to stream matches (particularly in 4K) and with broadband outages, you'd lose fans who are happy with matches on Sky etc.
On the tennis betting, so as expected Djoko bets were voided by betfair exchange and a new market formed without him. Therefore I also expected the equivalent of a Rule 4 deduction on bets matched on other players prior to the withdrawal. A chunky one too since the 'horse' pulled out was a short price. But it's not the case. No adjustment was made. Great for me as a backer - of Zverev and Sinner if you're interested - but I'd feel rather pissed off if I had lay bets.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its become a lot less relevant now as most games are not at 3.00 pm on a saturday.
The blackout is there to protect the lower leagues, not the PL.
That maybe so, but I don't think most lower league fans are NOT going to watch say Swindon vs Port Vale because they could be at home watching Southampton vs Brighton.
That’s exactly the reasoning behind the blackout - that people would rather watch a top flight match on TV, than attend a lower league game.
I don't buy it though - lower league fans are generally hugely passionate about their club. They aren't just popping in to see any game of football.
On the tennis betting, so as expected Djoko bets were voided by betfair exchange and a new market formed without him. Therefore I also expected the equivalent of a Rule 4 deduction on bets matched on other players prior to the withdrawal. A chunky one too since the 'horse' pulled out was a short price. But it's not the case. No adjustment was made. Great for me as a backer - of Zverev and Sinner if you're interested - but I'd feel rather pissed off if I had lay bets.
Deleted as wrong but I can't be bothered to fix it.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Looking at Greater Manchester, there are a couple of safe seats that might be available next time - Rochdale and Blackley. There are plenty of marginals but would you risk a footballer when there might be disgruntled fans of other clubs? Of course, Burnham will want a seat too
I don't see anything wrong with having a small number of people like Gary Neville parachuted into safe seats - one of the recurring problems with MPs is that too many of them are "professional" politicians; we should ideally have more people who've had successful careers in other walks of life making contributions to balance things out and give other viewpoints. Plus, he'll help with political engagement, even if it's just ABUs voting against him.
I do have an issue with saying he could into the Shadow Cabinet as there's no obvious evidence he could get his head around a complicated brief to the extent needed.
And your evidence that the present Cabinet can achieve this is?
They aren't getting routinely butchered at every single journalistic engagement they do.
Diane Abbott's repeated car crashes in the 2017 campaign is an excellent example of what happens when someone is not on top of their brief, at all. Say what they want about the present Cabinet - and this is the lowest of low bars to clear, but - we are not currently seeing daily examples of them being found out by the simplest of questions like "how much is this going to cost and how are you going to fund it?"
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Indeed that's Nick's position (I double checked with him yesterday).
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
I think its not a good idea to peg it to a number of positive tests, as this is dependent on other factors than just how much covid is out there. If you had to peg it to something, then hospital admission for covid (not with) would maybe work, or total covid patients. Just doing it for cases make no sense if the idea is to protect the hospitals.
I'd get rid of them now, full stop. I'm just explaining Nick's position as he's not around and I asked him directly yesterday (and he confirmed the above).
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
But, as has been said here, it’s not like Netflix and Disney+ have this worked out yet. They’re not making a profit yet. There’s been this huge change in technology and everyone’s still coming to terms with that.
So, in a period of uncertainty, what should you do with one of the nation’s greatest assets? Give it stability so it can thrive while others are floundering, or make it try to answer questions that no one else has yet solved?
What do you mean no profit and floundering....
Data presented by Finbold reveals that in the first three-quarters of 2021, Disney Plus was the highest-grossing streaming video entertainment app at $316 million profit.
Disney also own Hulu and ESPN+ that also make money. Winnie the Pooh has turned up and is eating every bodies lunch, while the BBC dick about bringing back BBC Three to over the air.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Indeed that's Nick's position (I double checked with him yesterday).
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
I think its not a good idea to peg it to a number of positive tests, as this is dependent on other factors than just how much covid is out there. If you had to peg it to something, then hospital admission for covid (not with) would maybe work, or total covid patients. Just doing it for cases make no sense if the idea is to protect the hospitals.
I'd get rid of them now, full stop. I'm just explaining Nick's position as he's not around and I asked him directly yesterday (and he confirmed the above).
Me too - just wanted to point out the folly of his approach. The whole farago is just stupid now. I popped across to the campus shop for a sandwich. I had to put a mask on to go past people sitting chatting without masks (apparently covid only spreads when walking, not when eating, drinking and chatting). Its mad and its mostly scare theatre.
Boris Johnson has less integrity than a banker (sic).
The former boss of Lloyds Banking Group has stepped down as chairman of Credit Suisse after less than 12 months following an investigation into his personal actions.
Sir Antonio Horta-Osorio, who steered lending giant Lloyds back into private ownership after its 2008 financial crisis bailout, said in a statement issued by Credit Suisse his actions had led to “difficulties” for the Swiss bank.
“I regret that a number of my personal actions have led to difficulties for the bank and compromised my ability to represent the bank internally and externally,” the Portuguese banker said.
“I therefore believe that my resignation is in the interest of the bank and its stakeholders at this crucial time,” he added.
He has been replaced as chairman by board member Axel Lehmann, the statement said.
Sir Antonio has reportedly broken Covid regulations in two countries over the last year.
Last July he is reported to have gone to the Wimbledon finals despite having recently arrived from Switzerland.
Switzerland was on the UK’s amber list at the time, so he should have been in quarantine, not at the tennis.
The bank has also admitted that he broke Switzerland’s rules on quarantine in November, having left the country before his 10-day isolation had ended.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Opinium has Labour 21% ahead in London now compared to 15% ahead in 2018.
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
If this happens will you then accept that it may be in the best interest of the Conservative Party for Boris Johnson to resign?
If even Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley are lost yes
It would have to be very very very bad then, not just very bad?
If Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley were lost then that would suggest a Labour majority and the Tories losing over 100 seats.
Chelsea and Fulham and Bromley and Chislehurst and Beckenham for example are not even in the top 100 Labour target seats on current boundaries, only in the top 100-200 Labour target seats. Losing them would suggest 1997 style wipeout
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h Epi to English translation:
"Without a new lockdown there'll be at least 3k deaths/day" = With a bit of WFH advice & masking, we can tough it out
"If schools open there'll be 2k-7k hospitalisations/day" = Do nothing & hospitalisations will peak at ~1k/day - it'll be no problem+
There are tentative signs cases might turn soon" = Cases started falling a week ago & are now dropping 20%/week
"If numbers carry on like this for another week I'll be hopeful the wave has turned" = Case have been falling for several weeks & are now dropping 45%/week
It's hard to understand how these SAGE figures think they're helping by denying reality - the bottom 2 examples here are going on right now and it just makes them look ridiculous. Combined with the top 2, it doesn't make them look like honest brokers of facts and advice.
Their response is to say that the 3k deaths/day was a worst case scenario. They will say that the models were right and point to the current situation as included as their best case scenario. They will avoid discussing why the current situation was not closer to their central case.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
They also sort of want it both ways. They are happy to BBC Studios (previously BBC Worldwide) to monetarise certain things and to own the advert funded UKTV, and also to take adverts on their website for non-UK audience....but then as soon as anybody suggests that perhaps the BBC licence fee might not be the way forward, it goes full back to wigan pier stuff, that it will be the end of everything, we could never continue with the best performing and favourite shows etc.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
I can’t agree with your second paragraph - without the explicit knowledge that the licence fee/business as usual is dead in a couple of years then there will be no incentive or urgency to change.
Some in the bbc will say “we will be fine as the govt will change and all will go back to status quo because we are the bbc and we are great”.
There are so many talking heads on the news defending the bbc as it is that again there isn’t really the recognition internally, and by those who live off the BBC’s largess that change is necessary.
There was a lady being interviewed on Today this morning almost hyperventilating about it and her arguments were completely blind to the existence of ITV, C4, C5 etc which don’t rely on the licence fee. She also was suggesting that News was at risk without the bbc - apart from Today programme I take very little BBC news on board - there are millions of news sources available.
So it goes back to the BBC thinking it’s too good to need to change and sometimes institutions that think they are brilliant don’t get the necessary realisation they need to adapt until they are too far behind the curve that it costs them dearly - as before: the British Army in Iraq, Liverpool when the PL started, Nokia, The University of Hull….
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
Including funding out of general taxation? Are they strongly opposed to that?
On the tennis betting, so as expected Djoko bets were voided by betfair exchange and a new market formed without him. Therefore I also expected the equivalent of a Rule 4 deduction on bets matched on other players prior to the withdrawal. A chunky one too since the 'horse' pulled out was a short price. But it's not the case. No adjustment was made. Great for me as a backer - of Zverev and Sinner if you're interested - but I'd feel rather pissed off if I had lay bets.
I've been left with a tenner on Nadal at 14 (now 7).
BoZo clings on and opposition politicians call him a liar in every TV interview until he does go
It’s open season.
Felling lazy, stupid, dishevelled water-buffalo might not be the prettiest sport, but hey, it’s tremendous fun.
Bloody dangerous quarry, second only to Cape buffalo. Their skulls are so thick they are effectively bullet proof, and if they charge you that's pretty much the only available target.
I once went on a safari drive/walk with a Zimbo guide whose partner was killed by a Cape buffalo the year before
It turned out the buffalo bore a grudge. The guy who died had aimed a shot at the buffalo, for some reason, a year or two before THAT. The buffalo remembered, and as soon as he saw the man again, he charged
Not only are they hard to kill, they are cantankerous, resentful and they nurture a grievance for aeons. Bit like some of the older chaps on here
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
Including funding out of general taxation? Are they strongly opposed to that?
I'd support funding from general taxation I think - we can't have a system when some pay and some don't and get away with it. If general taxation - the big salaries would have to be capped.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
Including funding out of general taxation? Are they strongly opposed to that?
It would make them dependent on the state for their funding.
This was the last poll I can find. The license fee is supported by less than a quarter of all people but the other alternatives aren’t massively supported either.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
But less than a week ago you were saying that those opposed to plan B measures would stick with the Conservatives because they have nowhere else to go. Now it seems they don't have the Conservatives either.
Masking is not a small practical measure, it is a) pointless theatre which does little or nothing to stop spread of omicron, and b) economically and societally damaging.
And no matter what polling on the matter says, I don't believe it is popular or beneficial for the government. When given the choice, most people don't mask. If they genuinely supported masking, voluntary masking would be much more prevalent.
Masking appears to be more effective against Omicron that against Delta.
How is masking economically and societally damaging? I can see big debates over lockdowns or vaccine passports or compulsory vaccination, but masking produces big benefits at pretty minimal costs.
Economically: because people don't do stuff when they have to wear masks to do so. Societally: because it's pretty dystopian to have everyone walking around hidden by a face mask. It does no good for levels of trust or communication. It's damaging to children. It's bad news for the deaf. It contributes to the climate of fear, which does the country no good.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
That sounds like the old proposals to tax audio cassettes as people recorded the hit parade off the radio in order to give the money to the record companies.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h Epi to English translation:
"Without a new lockdown there'll be at least 3k deaths/day" = With a bit of WFH advice & masking, we can tough it out
"If schools open there'll be 2k-7k hospitalisations/day" = Do nothing & hospitalisations will peak at ~1k/day - it'll be no problem+
There are tentative signs cases might turn soon" = Cases started falling a week ago & are now dropping 20%/week
"If numbers carry on like this for another week I'll be hopeful the wave has turned" = Case have been falling for several weeks & are now dropping 45%/week
It's hard to understand how these SAGE figures think they're helping by denying reality - the bottom 2 examples here are going on right now and it just makes them look ridiculous. Combined with the top 2, it doesn't make them look like honest brokers of facts and advice.
Their response is to say that the 3k deaths/day was a worst case scenario. They will say that the models were right and point to the current situation as included as their best case scenario. They will avoid discussing why the current situation was not closer to their central case.
The spectator data tracker is of interest. Looking at it with severity of omicron at 50% of delta it looks ridiculous. Flick to 10% and its a different story - pretty good match for cases. However for deaths, its still too high even at 10%. Now you can argue that lots of other mitigations happened because of the fear/worry over omicron, and thats true to a point. But realistically the modelling in this case was extremely poor.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h Epi to English translation:
"Without a new lockdown there'll be at least 3k deaths/day" = With a bit of WFH advice & masking, we can tough it out
"If schools open there'll be 2k-7k hospitalisations/day" = Do nothing & hospitalisations will peak at ~1k/day - it'll be no problem+
There are tentative signs cases might turn soon" = Cases started falling a week ago & are now dropping 20%/week
"If numbers carry on like this for another week I'll be hopeful the wave has turned" = Case have been falling for several weeks & are now dropping 45%/week
It's hard to understand how these SAGE figures think they're helping by denying reality - the bottom 2 examples here are going on right now and it just makes them look ridiculous. Combined with the top 2, it doesn't make them look like honest brokers of facts and advice.
Their response is to say that the 3k deaths/day was a worst case scenario. They will say that the models were right and point to the current situation as included as their best case scenario. They will avoid discussing why the current situation was not closer to their central case.
The spectator data tracker is of interest. Looking at it with severity of omicron at 50% of delta it looks ridiculous. Flick to 10% and its a different story - pretty good match for cases. However for deaths, its still too high even at 10%. Now you can argue that lots of other mitigations happened because of the fear/worry over omicron, and thats true to a point. But realistically the modelling in this case was extremely poor.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
That sounds like the old proposals to tax audio cassettes as people recorded the hit parade off the radio in order to give the money to the record companies.
I just don’t see it as viable.
No, you do it via PAYE. Just like you do with NI and tax. Set it at eg 1% of income.
On the tennis betting, so as expected Djoko bets were voided by betfair exchange and a new market formed without him. Therefore I also expected the equivalent of a Rule 4 deduction on bets matched on other players prior to the withdrawal. A chunky one too since the 'horse' pulled out was a short price. But it's not the case. No adjustment was made. Great for me as a backer - of Zverev and Sinner if you're interested - but I'd feel rather pissed off if I had lay bets.
I don't think a new market has been formed. Just the old market with Djokovic removed and bets refunded as per their rules.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
Including funding out of general taxation? Are they strongly opposed to that?
I'd support funding from general taxation I think - we can't have a system when some pay and some don't and get away with it. If general taxation - the big salaries would have to be capped.
There's always the risk of greater state interference with funding it from general taxaton, though.
BoZo clings on and opposition politicians call him a liar in every TV interview until he does go
It’s open season.
Felling lazy, stupid, dishevelled water-buffalo might not be the prettiest sport, but hey, it’s tremendous fun.
Bloody dangerous quarry, second only to Cape buffalo. Their skulls are so thick they are effectively bullet proof, and if they charge you that's pretty much the only available target.
I once went on a safari drive/walk with a Zimbo guide whose partner was killed by a Cape buffalo the year before
It turned out the buffalo bore a grudge. The guy who died had aimed a shot at the buffalo, for some reason, a year or two before THAT. The buffalo remembered, and as soon as he saw the man again, he charged
Not only are they hard to kill, they are cantankerous, resentful and they nurture a grievance for aeons. Bit like some of the older chaps on here
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Indeed that's Nick's position (I double checked with him yesterday).
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
I think its not a good idea to peg it to a number of positive tests, as this is dependent on other factors than just how much covid is out there. If you had to peg it to something, then hospital admission for covid (not with) would maybe work, or total covid patients. Just doing it for cases make no sense if the idea is to protect the hospitals.
Well, I agree - I was just trying to coax from HYUFD what metrics he'd use to decide when he would no longer support masking. Nick suggested 20,000 positive tests, but I think largely from a position of 'that sort of level' - I expect he would also have a similar gut feeling about what level of hospitalisations if that metric was thought better.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
Including funding out of general taxation? Are they strongly opposed to that?
I'd support funding from general taxation I think - we can't have a system when some pay and some don't and get away with it. If general taxation - the big salaries would have to be capped.
There's always the risk of greater state interference with funding it from general taxaton, though.
That is often voiced but need this necessarily be the case?
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Indeed that's Nick's position (I double checked with him yesterday).
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
I think its not a good idea to peg it to a number of positive tests, as this is dependent on other factors than just how much covid is out there. If you had to peg it to something, then hospital admission for covid (not with) would maybe work, or total covid patients. Just doing it for cases make no sense if the idea is to protect the hospitals.
Well, I agree - I was just trying to coax from HYUFD what metrics he'd use to decide when he would no longer support masking. Nick suggested 20,000 positive tests, but I think largely from a position of 'that sort of level' - I expect he would also have a similar gut feeling about what level of hospitalisations if that metric was thought better.
Idle pondering: how many "cases" of the flu occur each year.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Its a political party not a football team
His actions point in that direction. He has been making increasingly political comments for months and it has been clear he is left-wing in his leanings. But he never thought to join the Labour Party under Starmer.
Then, lo and behold, literally one or two weeks into when the polls turn decisively against the Govt and a Labour Govt looks more likely post the next GE, he declares he is joining Labour and then there is the talk of him becoming a MP.
He has probably looked at Rashford and thought "he's made a lot of money by pushing his causes, what's my equivalent?" He obviously can't do the adverts side because who is going to hire a middle-aged white man to push a message of inclusion and diversity. Plus he's got his money already and is not at the same stage of his career. Politics is the next best thing.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
I agree. The PL rights system is going nowhere.
Francis' argument for both the PL and the BBC seems to be "I think this is outdated, therefore it is outdated and needs changing immediately."
However, this seems to come from a place of assuming that the PL and BBC aren't looking to the future themselves. I'm sure they are, I just don't think they're rushing into it.
Taking BBC Three for example, I've seen it written on here over the weekend that live TV is dead and it's all about streaming, but I'm sure the BBC wouldn't spend the money to restart a TV service that they closed down with fanfare 7 years earlier if they hadn't done their research and found an audience for it.
BBC Three is a huge waste of time and money. It's an example of those old fools at the top of the BBC not really having a clue about how to attract under 40s to watch the BBC. It's these people that cling to the old ways that will see the decline and eventual failure of it.
Given hat BBC3 is around 0.5% of the BBC (30m from 5bn afaics), it's a bit difficult to argue that it is a "huge" anything.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
They also sort of want it both ways. They are happy to BBC Studios (previously BBC Worldwide) to monetarise certain things and to own the advert funded UKTV, and also to take adverts on their website for non-UK audience....but then as soon as anybody suggests that perhaps the BBC licence fee might not be the way forward, it goes full back to wigan pier stuff, that it will be the end of everything, we could never continue with the best performing and favourite shows etc.
All good points. They want the best of both worlds. The license fee and their charter does hold them back from taking full advantage of the changing landscape too.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Its a political party not a football team
His actions point in that direction. He has been making increasingly political comments for months and it has been clear he is left-wing in his leanings. But he never thought to join the Labour Party under Starmer.
Then, lo and behold, literally one or two weeks into when the polls turn decisively against the Govt and a Labour Govt looks more likely post the next GE, he declares he is joining Labour and then there is the talk of him becoming a MP.
He has probably looked at Rashford and thought "he's made a lot of money by pushing his causes, what's my equivalent?" He obviously can't do the adverts side because who is going to hire a middle-aged white man to push a message of inclusion and diversity. Plus he's got his money already and is not at the same stage of his career. Politics is the next best thing.
"he's made a lot of money by pushing his causes, what's my equivalent?"
LOL are you serious? How do you suppose Rashford made (and still makes) his £10m/year.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
They also sort of want it both ways. They are happy to BBC Studios (previously BBC Worldwide) to monetarise certain things and to own the advert funded UKTV, and also to take adverts on their website for non-UK audience....but then as soon as anybody suggests that perhaps the BBC licence fee might not be the way forward, it goes full back to wigan pier stuff, that it will be the end of everything, we could never continue with the best performing and favourite shows etc.
All good points. They want the best of both worlds. The license fee and their charter does hold them back from taking full advantage of the changing landscape too.
Absolutely, but as soon as somebody suggests a different approach, out comes the well we couldn't possibly afford to make something the Archers....which costs buttons compared to the cost of other things that are already well covered by commercial channels or could do cheaper e.g the rights to the Voice or the very large salaries for football pundits.
On the tennis betting, so as expected Djoko bets were voided by betfair exchange and a new market formed without him. Therefore I also expected the equivalent of a Rule 4 deduction on bets matched on other players prior to the withdrawal. A chunky one too since the 'horse' pulled out was a short price. But it's not the case. No adjustment was made. Great for me as a backer - of Zverev and Sinner if you're interested - but I'd feel rather pissed off if I had lay bets.
I've been left with a tenner on Nadal at 14 (now 7).
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Indeed that's Nick's position (I double checked with him yesterday).
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
I think its not a good idea to peg it to a number of positive tests, as this is dependent on other factors than just how much covid is out there. If you had to peg it to something, then hospital admission for covid (not with) would maybe work, or total covid patients. Just doing it for cases make no sense if the idea is to protect the hospitals.
Well, I agree - I was just trying to coax from HYUFD what metrics he'd use to decide when he would no longer support masking. Nick suggested 20,000 positive tests, but I think largely from a position of 'that sort of level' - I expect he would also have a similar gut feeling about what level of hospitalisations if that metric was thought better.
Masking is not really to protect hospitals though, that would be another lockdown or mandatory vaxports.
Masking is just a way to help reduce case spread, as case rates will always be highest in winter
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
Including funding out of general taxation? Are they strongly opposed to that?
It would make them dependent on the state for their funding.
This was the last poll I can find. The license fee is supported by less than a quarter of all people but the other alternatives aren’t massively supported either.
I'm not sure how Dorries tweeting that she's reached a decision on binning the funding mechanism 6 years ahead of time is any less "dependent on the state".
If anyone in govt had the balls to stick up for it, making £3bn disappear in general taxation would be a very neat solution - as long as there was a similar charter-based long-term settlement rather than scrapping for it every year in the budget. More progressive to take it via income tax and not hit those on a low fixed incomes as hard as, well, Gary Lineker.
If HMG is determined to remove public subsidy, it should be careful about the remaining landscape. Not sure commercial broadcasters would want to shoulder the costs of squirting Freeview from 1200 transmitters alone (ditto commercial radio providers who've had their DAB coverage extended thanks to BBC subsidy); thousands of people in independent production companies whose work is bought by the BBC; local newspaper coverage of councils subsidised by the Local Democracy Reporting Service... etc etc..
One hankers for the days when Nads' TV interventions were measured by the amount of bollocks going *into* her mouth..
Comments
Clearly they’ve missed all the philanthropy going on around vaccines, it’s just that no-one wants to pass their donations through a bunch of child abusers. https://news.sky.com/story/oxfam-admits-it-knew-about-abuse-report-10-years-ago-11254729
The problems with vaccines in the developing world are not related to supply or funding, but to logistics and education.
Again the problem is a lot of their sport is crowbarred in around everything else, where as Sky have a whole dedicated channel just for F1.
The only time sport is front and centre on the BBC is something like Wimbledon or World Cup football. Obviously it isn't even now due to the rights deal at the Olympics.
Thing is war and insurgencies had changed and the Army didn’t have the new skills embedded in them yet, didn’t want to listen to new ideas, had a bit of an arrogance because they were great once and it cost them badly.
I can see the top chaps at the beeb in a bit of a circle-jerk still fighting the old war the old way and telling each other “but we’re the BBC, best in the world”…..
If Tory wipeout happens anywhere it will be in London where every Tory council and councillor is up. I would expect Wandsworth and Barnet to at least go Labour.
On a very bad night I would expect Hillingdon to go Labour too and Westminster to go NOC.
On a Tory wipeout night Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley would go NOC and Bexley would be the only Tory majority council left in London
Will the report contain attendees?
I think he needs to be gone, but its hardly a surprise that his opponents are calling for it!
Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Disney have all the Avengers and Marvel heros assembled for a dust up....the BBC have sent the nice chap from the bodyguard.
If he says: I had no idea there was a party, then a. nobody says otherwise, and with one bound he was free!
Or b. Someone says Actually you knew and here's the email, he goes and everybody says Liar liar pants on fire. But we knew that anyway and there is no perjury penalty for lying to SG.
So why tell da troof?
So, in a period of uncertainty, what should you do with one of the nation’s greatest assets? Give it stability so it can thrive while others are floundering, or make it try to answer questions that no one else has yet solved?
No, that’s nonsense - it was down to the ability of Conservative Party to change government before elections and campaign against their unpopular former selves.
No, that’s nonsense, if the Tory’s hadn’t swallowed up virtually all Farage Party they would never have got the big majority.
Oh okay. It’s probably mixture of everything mentioned in this discussion?
I do have an issue with saying he could into the Shadow Cabinet as there's no obvious evidence he could get his head around a complicated brief to the extent needed.
He's been one of the few Labourite voices to argue against restrictions from a leftwing standpoint.
Bring him in.
Any sort of lie to Sue that Norman can then prove, Boris may well save himself from crashing into the ground, have blissful 24hrs with better newspaper headlines. Before crashing into the mountain.
As it happens, we are now in a situation where Nick is more liberal on restrictions than the current rules – he confirmed yesterday that he's abolish masking in theatres and cinemas right now.
Just feels like deja vu to me, polling had Labour 20% ahead in London in April 2018 (including specific local election polling). Although it was the Greens and LDs who overperformed which could happen again.
I can see the Tories getting destroyed by the Lib Dems in Kingston, Richmond, Sutton and Merton although they only have a handful of seats to lose in the first two.
However any candidate should at least have some campaigning record for the party first
How is masking economically and societally damaging? I can see big debates over lockdowns or vaccine passports or compulsory vaccination, but masking produces big benefits at pretty minimal costs.
Chelsea and Fulham and Bromley and Chislehurst and Beckenham for example are not even in the top 100 Labour target seats on current boundaries, only in the top 100-200 Labour target seats. Losing them would suggest 1997 style wipeout
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
I hope you are right – but this morning's Torygraph says that masking will be retained in shops and on public transport. Not clear that Labour would vote for that, actually. My sense is that all three major parties are moving against restrictions but we will see.
Also, given the recent furore over second jobs for MPs, can you imagine if a top-level footballer became an MP whilst still playing, and had to declare secondary annual earnings of £[tens of millions]? What kind of access would that buy, I wonder?
1) They don't have the infrastructure to produce the coverage we've come to expect. All PL productions are produced by Sky, BT, and the BBC as domestic rights holders.
2) The PL also don't have infrastructure to set up the billing department to deal with subscriptions, especially when people stop paying.
3) Cash flow, in short, the UK broadcasters pay six months in advance, going D2C will cause huge cash flow problems for the overwhelming majority of clubs, which relates to 2). During the off season, and say during a financial crisis/pandemic, you can guarantee enough people will cancel/stop paying to save money.
They could go to banks/VC etc, cover the initial cash flow problem, but that would cost them to make it unwise.
4) After the fiasco with ITV Sport and lesser extent Setanta, the PL have always had parental guarantees going all the way up to the top, so if Sky, BT Sport, or Amazon UK go mammary glands up, Comcast, BT Group, and Amazon worldwide are on the hook for the money. You won't get that if you are D2C.
5) With worldwide rights now, they monies are NOT split evenly, given the viewers the big clubs get overseas, you'd see pressure for the domestic rights to shared more with the big clubs thanks to the PL having the data for each match as all 380 would go on the channel.
When the PL went PPV during 20/21 Liverpool matches got huge subs, whereas Burnley matches against smaller clubs got 10 subs, so we'd end up like La Liga with Real & Barca get 80% of the TV money.
6) Streaming is unlikely for a decade, not everyone has the speeds to stream matches (particularly in 4K) and with broadband outages, you'd lose fans who are happy with matches on Sky etc.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/amazon-prime-video-football-live-streams-tv-premier-league-fixtures-not-working-tonight-a9233346.html
Diane Abbott's repeated car crashes in the 2017 campaign is an excellent example of what happens when someone is not on top of their brief, at all. Say what they want about the present Cabinet - and this is the lowest of low bars to clear, but - we are not currently seeing daily examples of them being found out by the simplest of questions like "how much is this going to cost and how are you going to fund it?"
Data presented by Finbold reveals that in the first three-quarters of 2021, Disney Plus was the highest-grossing streaming video entertainment app at $316 million profit.
https://finbold.com/disney-outshines-netflix-by-3x-more-profits-in-2021-despite-fewer-app-downloads/
Disney also own Hulu and ESPN+ that also make money. Winnie the Pooh has turned up and is eating every bodies lunch, while the BBC dick about bringing back BBC Three to over the air.
The former boss of Lloyds Banking Group has stepped down as chairman of Credit Suisse after less than 12 months following an investigation into his personal actions.
Sir Antonio Horta-Osorio, who steered lending giant Lloyds back into private ownership after its 2008 financial crisis bailout, said in a statement issued by Credit Suisse his actions had led to “difficulties” for the Swiss bank.
“I regret that a number of my personal actions have led to difficulties for the bank and compromised my ability to represent the bank internally and externally,” the Portuguese banker said.
“I therefore believe that my resignation is in the interest of the bank and its stakeholders at this crucial time,” he added.
He has been replaced as chairman by board member Axel Lehmann, the statement said.
Sir Antonio has reportedly broken Covid regulations in two countries over the last year.
Last July he is reported to have gone to the Wimbledon finals despite having recently arrived from Switzerland.
Switzerland was on the UK’s amber list at the time, so he should have been in quarantine, not at the tennis.
The bank has also admitted that he broke Switzerland’s rules on quarantine in November, having left the country before his 10-day isolation had ended.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/former-lloyds-boss-horta-osorio-quits-credit-suisse-after-investigation-41246708.html
Some in the bbc will say “we will be fine as the govt will change and all will go back to status quo because we are the bbc and we are great”.
There are so many talking heads on the news defending the bbc as it is that again there isn’t really the recognition internally, and by those who live off the BBC’s largess that change is necessary.
There was a lady being interviewed on Today this morning almost hyperventilating about it and her arguments were completely blind to the existence of ITV, C4, C5 etc which don’t rely on the licence fee. She also was suggesting that News was at risk without the bbc - apart from Today programme I take very little BBC news on board - there are millions of news sources available.
So it goes back to the BBC thinking it’s too good to need to change and sometimes institutions that think they are brilliant don’t get the necessary realisation they need to adapt until they are too far behind the curve that it costs them dearly - as before: the British Army in Iraq, Liverpool when the PL started, Nokia, The University of Hull….
It turned out the buffalo bore a grudge. The guy who died had aimed a shot at the buffalo, for some reason, a year or two before THAT. The buffalo remembered, and as soon as he saw the man again, he charged
Not only are they hard to kill, they are cantankerous, resentful and they nurture a grievance for aeons. Bit like some of the older chaps on here
This was the last poll I can find. The license fee is supported by less than a quarter of all people but the other alternatives aren’t massively supported either.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/media/trackers/how-should-the-bbc-be-funded
Societally: because it's pretty dystopian to have everyone walking around hidden by a face mask. It does no good for levels of trust or communication. It's damaging to children. It's bad news for the deaf. It contributes to the climate of fear, which does the country no good.
I just don’t see it as viable.
Now you can argue that lots of other mitigations happened because of the fear/worry over omicron, and thats true to a point. But realistically the modelling in this case was extremely poor.
Have a play -
https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10409905/EXCLUSIVE-Blackburn-terrorist-44-ranted-wishing-board-one-9-11-planes.html
Good statement by the brother imo.
Then, lo and behold, literally one or two weeks into when the polls turn decisively against the Govt and a Labour Govt looks more likely post the next GE, he declares he is joining Labour and then there is the talk of him becoming a MP.
He has probably looked at Rashford and thought "he's made a lot of money by pushing his causes, what's my equivalent?" He obviously can't do the adverts side because who is going to hire a middle-aged white man to push a message of inclusion and diversity. Plus he's got his money already and is not at the same stage of his career. Politics is the next best thing.
LOL are you serious? How do you suppose Rashford made (and still makes) his £10m/year.
Fighting for the rights of poor children?
Masking is just a way to help reduce case spread, as case rates will always be highest in winter
If anyone in govt had the balls to stick up for it, making £3bn disappear in general taxation would be a very neat solution - as long as there was a similar charter-based long-term settlement rather than scrapping for it every year in the budget. More progressive to take it via income tax and not hit those on a low fixed incomes as hard as, well, Gary Lineker.
If HMG is determined to remove public subsidy, it should be careful about the remaining landscape. Not sure commercial broadcasters would want to shoulder the costs of squirting Freeview from 1200 transmitters alone (ditto commercial radio providers who've had their DAB coverage extended thanks to BBC subsidy); thousands of people in independent production companies whose work is bought by the BBC; local newspaper coverage of councils subsidised by the Local Democracy Reporting Service... etc etc..
One hankers for the days when Nads' TV interventions were measured by the amount of bollocks going *into* her mouth..