Question for the techies. I am creating maps for my forthcoming trip to Portugal using Google maps. I can send links to those maps to my phone and the options are:
1) To my mobile 2) Text 3) Email.
All 3 work.
I understand how 3) works, but how the hell does my laptop send a text? It does but I don't understand how.
And what is 1). The link appeared as a message on my phone which I can link to but I never see it again after that. Where is it stored.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
The woes of Kings Lynn hospital have been all over the Eastern region TV for months. The interesting comparison between being in a private hospital as a patient and and NHS one is the aftercare. IME NHS is far better! I've been worked in the NHS and in private hospitals, and dealt with patients who've been discharged from both!
OKC, fine if you can get into an NHS one though, nowadys you have to be near pegging it.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
What transmission network?
I get my transmissions primarily now through the internet and secondarily through a satellite dish at the side of my house. Others get it through cable.
I don't think the licence fee pays for any of that, but would be happy to be corrected.
The wavelength that was previously well used should be auctioned off before long. I see no reason for our taxes to pay for that, we should be getting revenue from that instead.
‘What transmission network?’
Wow. There is a huge transmission network and recently in the north east one transmitter blew over in a storm and people were left without TV for weeks.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
The quote is more about Tina Brown saying ‘look at me, I’m relevant’
"and buy my book"
Her quote says more about her than it does about the Queen. Whatever you think about Boris, anyone who thinks anything of the Queen would know the Queen wouldn't say it (even if it is true) so its gossip she's invented, like much of the rest of the stuff she publishes.
But say something critical of Boris and half of Twitter will retweet you and claim you're a "Royal expert" - and then quote loads of people calling you a "Royal expert" to push your new book.
Quite cynically clever really.
Don't think it's even that - looks like a perfectly straightforward reply. No undue attribution. "don't think ... probably" and so on.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
Why? Data is far more effective transmission medium, and we all use the internet.
Its already been done before. The previous analogue TV spectrum has already been repurposed after it was shut down. The digital TV spectrum could and probably will do the same thing again in the future when it is finally shut down.
Two reasons: aerial size (see my reply to Malmsbury), and interoperability. If TV frequencies become a kind of 6G network, will mobile phone technology need to change to talk on those frequencies? If so, if the UK market alone big enough for that kind of manufacturing push? If other, larger, markets are doing the same thing then yes. But if not it'll be economically questionable for phone manufacturers.
Yes, its globally being worked on.
6G started being worked on a couple of years ago and it is estimated it could be ready for launch in 2030 and would be capable of using that spectrum at a theoretical rate of one terrabyte wireless data. All major tech companies are already working on 6G.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
The worm misses the gravy train.
That particular worm has a first class ticket. BoZo put him in the Lords so as an unelected politician he can make our laws, as a reward for stopping "unelected politicians make our laws"...
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
It was more likely Welby picked the readings. And that would accord with his very publicly stated views of Johnson.
What it also says is how casual and lazy Johnson is. On the rare occasions I am asked to read the lesson, I read it through first. He clearly didn't think to.
Er, why do you say that? He wouldn't have asked to do a swap would he?
It's not even an issue about money or use of spectrum. The very notion of sitting down at the same time to watch the same broadcast TV is outdated. If you look at what kids do it's obvious that broadcasting will wither and die.
Except that's exactly what happened last night
Sure for one-off events broadcasting makes sense. For at least 90% of the year it makes little sense. On-demand is already the norm for a large and growing proportion of the viewing public. The BBC needs to get ahead of the pack, not trail along at the rear.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He's the twit who said we wouldn't leave it in the first place. I would generally ignore anything he said on the grounds it is most unlikely to be worth listening to. Bit like Cummings.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
In fairness I think like many leavers he always said we would on leaving. That would be the deal because the German car industry and Italian prosecco makers would put pressure on the EU to give us that deal. We hold all the cards springs to mind.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
What transmission network?
I get my transmissions primarily now through the internet and secondarily through a satellite dish at the side of my house. Others get it through cable.
I don't think the licence fee pays for any of that, but would be happy to be corrected.
The wavelength that was previously well used should be auctioned off before long. I see no reason for our taxes to pay for that, we should be getting revenue from that instead.
‘What transmission network?’
Wow. There is a huge transmission network and recently in the north east one transmitter blew over in a storm and people were left without TV for weeks.
The point is that the digital transmission network you are presently using is just one of a plethora of transmission mediums, it is obsolete and while you may currently be using it, many others aren't and we will move on from it and your current network you're still using will be switched off and auctioned off before long.
Just as happened a generation ago with the analogue transmission network that some were still using and was switched off and auctioned off.
The days of aerial TV are coming to an end. In the future it will be as alien as getting TV from analogue spectrum is now.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
When the history of Brexit is written, I hope some attention is given to the post-referendum intolerance from Brexiters towards sensible discussion about the nature of what Brexit should look like. The ultras shouted down any voices calling for close alignment as literally treachery (even though that was what a lot of leavers were arguing for beforehand). This kind of scorched-earth tactic has negative strategic value, and it shouldn't have happened.
Oh and before I get any whataboutery from the usual suspects, I have zero interest on lectures from people who can't also own the mistakes from their own side. I'm done listening to ultras and self-professed "hard men".
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
It was more likely Welby picked the readings. And that would accord with his very publicly stated views of Johnson.
What it also says is how casual and lazy Johnson is. On the rare occasions I am asked to read the lesson, I read it through first. He clearly didn't think to.
Er, why do you say that? He wouldn't have asked to do a swap would he?
He could very easily have done, and if he had said Welby was hijacking the jubilee celebrations to push politics do you think he wouldn't have been allowed it in rather a hurry?
Question for the techies. I am creating maps for my forthcoming trip to Portugal using Google maps. I can send links to those maps to my phone and the options are:
1) To my mobile 2) Text 3) Email.
All 3 work.
I understand how 3) works, but how the hell does my laptop send a text? It does but I don't understand how.
And what is 1). The link appeared as a message on my phone which I can link to but I never see it again after that. Where is it stored.
I'm bloody impressed, as well as confused.
Numbers 1 and 2 use Google Cloud Services. Your trip is stored on their web server, which has an SMS interface to text you a link back to their server. Number 1 probably saves it to your Google account online, in a similar way (computer and mobile both logged into the same Google account).
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
Why? Data is far more effective transmission medium, and we all use the internet.
Its already been done before. The previous analogue TV spectrum has already been repurposed after it was shut down. The digital TV spectrum could and probably will do the same thing again in the future when it is finally shut down.
Two reasons: aerial size (see my reply to Malmsbury), and interoperability. If TV frequencies become a kind of 6G network, will mobile phone technology need to change to talk on those frequencies? If so, if the UK market alone big enough for that kind of manufacturing push? If other, larger, markets are doing the same thing then yes. But if not it'll be economically questionable for phone manufacturers.
Yes, its globally being worked on.
6G started being worked on a couple of years ago and it is estimated it could be ready for launch in 2030 and would be capable of using that spectrum at a theoretical rate of one terrabyte wireless data. All major tech companies are already working on 6G.
Sorry, when I said "a kind of 6G network", I didn't mean actual 6G, which I understand is actually higher frequency, isn't it? Not the lower frequencies of tv/radio signals.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
Sure! I am glad that Hunt has had a change of perspective after his days of deliberately slashing of staff numbers, going to war with trainee doctors and cutting funding for trainee nurses.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
Why? Data is far more effective transmission medium, and we all use the internet.
Its already been done before. The previous analogue TV spectrum has already been repurposed after it was shut down. The digital TV spectrum could and probably will do the same thing again in the future when it is finally shut down.
Two reasons: aerial size (see my reply to Malmsbury), and interoperability. If TV frequencies become a kind of 6G network, will mobile phone technology need to change to talk on those frequencies? If so, if the UK market alone big enough for that kind of manufacturing push? If other, larger, markets are doing the same thing then yes. But if not it'll be economically questionable for phone manufacturers.
Yes, its globally being worked on.
6G started being worked on a couple of years ago and it is estimated it could be ready for launch in 2030 and would be capable of using that spectrum at a theoretical rate of one terrabyte wireless data. All major tech companies are already working on 6G.
The U.K. won’t be alone. The move to digital TV was worldwide.
Was out yesterday, and amazed to see that the cricket match is somehow still ongoing. Maybe Lord’s were right to be worried about the Day 4 ticket sales, although can’t see it going much past lunch no matter which side prevails.
It's not even an issue about money or use of spectrum. The very notion of sitting down at the same time to watch the same broadcast TV is outdated. If you look at what kids do it's obvious that broadcasting will wither and die.
Except that's exactly what happened last night
I was watching the end of The Umbrella Academy. What were you watching?
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
It was more likely Welby picked the readings. And that would accord with his very publicly stated views of Johnson.
What it also says is how casual and lazy Johnson is. On the rare occasions I am asked to read the lesson, I read it through first. He clearly didn't think to.
Er, why do you say that? He wouldn't have asked to do a swap would he?
He could very easily have done, and if he had said Welby was hijacking the jubilee celebrations to push politics do you think he wouldn't have been allowed it in rather a hurry?
It would have to be before the programme was finalised and publicised, though, to avoid an even worse incident: which makes your point!
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
Was out yesterday, and amazed to see that the cricket match is somehow still ongoing. Maybe Lord’s were right to be worried about the Day 4 ticket sales, although can’t see it going much past lunch no matter which side prevails.
Theyve got some fancy lunch do on today so i think they are thrilled it made it. Should finish by about lunch unless weather is involved. I think they can avoud refunds if 20 overs get played......
Was out yesterday, and amazed to see that the cricket match is somehow still ongoing. Maybe Lord’s were right to be worried about the Day 4 ticket sales, although can’t see it going much past lunch no matter which side prevails.
Theyve got some fancy lunch do on today so i think they are thrilled it made it. Should finish by about lunch unless weather is involved. I think they can avoud refunds if 20 overs get played......
No cricket today at the Oval. Reign stopped play. A Jubilee lunch for 450 volunteers will be served and the Prince of Wales, the ground’s landlord, is due to pop in and deliver a cake. Guests currently being entertained by a steel band https://twitter.com/patrick_kidd/status/1533380368220442625/photo/1
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
There is a marvellous recurring theme at key times that there is something called "Internal" or "Private" polling which somehow is worse, or better or in a mysterious way more reliable and interesting than "Polling".
I can't see any way in which this can be true. Can it?
It could be targetted on marginals, for example, or exclude the "weigh the votes" seats. Or have a different form for the question.
Mmm -- political parties often have both the money and the motivation to do polling that is aimed at getting them more detailed or more specific data that can be a better predictor of the future than the more generic broad-based public polls. On the other hand, exactly because it is private, we the general public only get to see it when it is leaked or revealed by somebody, and that somebody usually has a motivation for telling us about poll X but not poll Y, and they don't publish all the underlying data either -- so from the public's viewpoint the private polling we get to know about is worse, because it's been through that biased filter.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.
I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?
I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.
Reshuffle her out.
The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .
Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.
The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.
The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.
And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
Do we really need a "national" broadcaster? I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?
I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me. I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.
How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
What transmission network?
I get my transmissions primarily now through the internet and secondarily through a satellite dish at the side of my house. Others get it through cable.
I don't think the licence fee pays for any of that, but would be happy to be corrected.
The wavelength that was previously well used should be auctioned off before long. I see no reason for our taxes to pay for that, we should be getting revenue from that instead.
‘What transmission network?’
Wow. There is a huge transmission network and recently in the north east one transmitter blew over in a storm and people were left without TV for weeks.
The point is that the digital transmission network you are presently using is just one of a plethora of transmission mediums, it is obsolete and while you may currently be using it, many others aren't and we will move on from it and your current network you're still using will be switched off and auctioned off before long.
Just as happened a generation ago with the analogue transmission network that some were still using and was switched off and auctioned off.
The days of aerial TV are coming to an end. In the future it will be as alien as getting TV from analogue spectrum is now.
It was only 12 years between initial digital transmissions in the UK and switching off analog entirely on air/cable/satellite. (Would've been less than that if there hadn't been an argument in Milton Keynes about who owned the cable!)
I imagine the Freeview switchoff could be even quicker.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
Catching up on the jubilee concert last night, some great performances as always, from a huge variety of acts.
Loved especially the change in environment after dark, showcasing advances in production technology with the mapping projections onto Buckingham Palace, and the drone show. A serious amount of effort put into that show, demonstrated by Sigala’s performance https://youtube.com/watch?v=gHhFfsWkaMw
No cricket today at the Oval. Reign stopped play. A Jubilee lunch for 450 volunteers will be served and the Prince of Wales, the ground’s landlord, is due to pop in and deliver a cake. Guests currently being entertained by a steel band https://twitter.com/patrick_kidd/status/1533380368220442625/photo/1
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I wonder if the chaos at the airports will swing things a little. There seem to be two stories out there: 1. People suffering absurd delays at (mainly) southern UK airports both getting bags checked and through security on the way out, then waiting for bags return on the way back 2. People waiting for several hours in foreign airports where the ROW queue is endless and the EU speed queue walks past them.
There's little can be done about 2 and it will get even worse once the new computer system comes in later this year. Anyone from outside the EU need both to get their passports scanned, the computer synched and the date stamped. Even an efficient system will take time and for Eurotunnel they still don't know how to manage the back pressure of people this will create. Its hardly prejudicial against the UK as some claim, its us being a third country. Which our government insisted on.
On point 1, the harsh light of day is that whilst the airports are the ones who fired and failed to hire the staff, its the government's fault. The sector at the time said it would need more help and ministers said no. The sector relies on government security checks which like everything government is a disorganised shambles, and even then there just aren't enough potential staff for them to hire and get screened.
The sector - like many - could rely on eastern European labour to fill the gaps. Now that they aren't an option, patriotic Brits don't want the work or can't afford the work. So the gaps remain and the system ceases to function.
Whatabout Dublin and Schiphol say the the Brexiteers? And yes, staff shortages are happening in other countries because of Covid rapidly reshaping labour markets globally. But they are *only* suffering from that. They aren't then suffering from an acute labour pool shortage and an incompetent government unable to do security screenings.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
29% of UK babies are born to mothers born abroad. This does not seem to me an indicator of an unwelcoming racist society.
I can't read the mood of Tory MPs at all. It could still drag out for months in theory so Johnson leaving in 2023 is possibly a value bet.
He could possibly survive until May 2023 and then be ousted after the local election results are worse than 2019/2022.
2019 was a poor set of results so a repeat of the 2022 NEV would see the Tories do OK. If they are still declining before then he will be gone 'somehow'. I think its 'now' (by conference, likely by July, new leader by conference)
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I do not think that is right. Rather, it was a combination of Take Back Control and Levelling Up — iirc there was some evidence that Farage's crass foreigner-bashing lost votes; and by-and-large Leave-voting areas tended to be light on immigrants.
Question for the techies. I am creating maps for my forthcoming trip to Portugal using Google maps. I can send links to those maps to my phone and the options are:
1) To my mobile 2) Text 3) Email.
All 3 work.
I understand how 3) works, but how the hell does my laptop send a text? It does but I don't understand how.
And what is 1). The link appeared as a message on my phone which I can link to but I never see it again after that. Where is it stored.
I'm bloody impressed, as well as confused.
Numbers 1 and 2 use Google Cloud Services. Your trip is stored on their web server, which has an SMS interface to text you a link back to their server. Number 1 probably saves it to your Google account online, in a similar way (computer and mobile both logged into the same Google account).
Cheers Sandpit, appreciated. I will try and find 1). Me being from simple stock the text really threw me. I'm trying to work out which is best ie not to be swamped by clutter. I prefer emails but get so many it is difficult to find stuff sometimes.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
Indeed they are! And yet so many people when asked about why they are going to vote for Brexit said because they are worried about muslims taking over, about afghans and syrian migrants, about funny people with dark skin filling the schools and hospitals etc etc. I know of several classic phonein clips where the caller is asked which EU country is muslim or full of dark-skinned people, and they just flap.
It isn't racism because so many of the people they don't want are as white and European as they are. They just speak Romanian.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
Sure! I am glad that Hunt has had a change of perspective after his days of deliberately slashing of staff numbers, going to war with trainee doctors and cutting funding for trainee nurses.
Hunt was our longest-serving Health Secretary since the old king died and knows what doesn't work, if only because he tried most of it.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
The quote is more about Tina Brown saying ‘look at me, I’m relevant’
"and buy my book"
Her quote says more about her than it does about the Queen. Whatever you think about Boris, anyone who thinks anything of the Queen would know the Queen wouldn't say it (even if it is true) so its gossip she's invented, like much of the rest of the stuff she publishes.
But say something critical of Boris and half of Twitter will retweet you and claim you're a "Royal expert" - and then quote loads of people calling you a "Royal expert" to push your new book.
Quite cynically clever really.
Don't think it's even that - looks like a perfectly straightforward reply. No undue attribution. "don't think ... probably" and so on.
The “probably” was linked to Johnson’s status “probably the least distinguished” not to HMQ’s view.
It’s cynical marketing from her perspective - saying something uncontroversial but phrased in a way to make her sound connected
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
The left never take a break from politics!
Indeed. All these left-wing Tory MPs filling newspaper coverage over Jubilee weekend by gossipping to hacks about how bad it is for Boris.
Question for the techies. I am creating maps for my forthcoming trip to Portugal using Google maps. I can send links to those maps to my phone and the options are:
1) To my mobile 2) Text 3) Email.
Numbers 1 and 2 use Google Cloud Services. Your trip is stored on their web server, which has an SMS interface to text you a link back to their server. Number 1 probably saves it to your Google account online, in a similar way (computer and mobile both logged into the same Google account).
Right, in some sense all three methods work in the same way -- in case 3 the laptop isn't sending the email itself either. All of these are the laptop talking to Google's web server and asking it to do something, and in all three cases it's the web server that then sends a message elsewhere one way or another. The laptop and the phone never talk directly to each other. Google will have their own setup for programmatically sending SMSes; if you're a smaller company you can buy and integrate that kind of service off-the-shelf from a company like Twilio.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
Indeed contrary to what Murali said, many non white people campaigned and voted for Leave so that people of their own ethnic heritage would no longer be discriminated against.
The fact that initially at least migration numbers aren't falling seems to indicate that has been achieved. We still have immigration but now it is controlled and via merit rather than the colour of your skin or where you were born.
I can't read the mood of Tory MPs at all. It could still drag out for months in theory so Johnson leaving in 2023 is possibly a value bet.
He could possibly survive until May 2023 and then be ousted after the local election results are worse than 2019/2022.
Given the Tories only got 28% NEV in the May 2019 local elections, even if the Tories only get the 30% NEV they got in May they will still make gains
Depends on how the LDs do, if Johnson is still in place next year, the NEV could be something like Lab 34 Con 28 LD 21 and the Tories could still suffer further losses in southern shire districts even if they shore up their support further in the Midlands.
I can't read the mood of Tory MPs at all. It could still drag out for months in theory so Johnson leaving in 2023 is possibly a value bet.
He could possibly survive until May 2023 and then be ousted after the local election results are worse than 2019/2022.
If I'm right, which admittedly is often not the case, there is a deep irony here in that Boris is fighting for survival only so he can retire before the next election.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I don’t think that’s possible although it’s the rational option.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
The most likely scenario for revisiting or unwinding Brexit is when those who sold it to a hapless population have a rethink. Having laboured through Dominic Cummings interview with Susanne Moore I got the feeling that even he was no longer fully convinced. But even if I'm over reading what he said if changing his mind helps in the humiliation of his previous partner he'll go for it
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
Indeed contrary to what Murali said, many non white people campaigned and voted for Leave so that people of their own ethnic heritage would no longer be discriminated against.
The fact that initially at least migration numbers aren't falling seems to indicate that has been achieved. We still have immigration but now it is controlled and via merit rather than the colour of your skin or where you were born.
Imagine that, treating people according to the content of their character.
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
No cricket today at the Oval. Reign stopped play. A Jubilee lunch for 450 volunteers will be served and the Prince of Wales, the ground’s landlord, is due to pop in and deliver a cake. Guests currently being entertained by a steel band https://twitter.com/patrick_kidd/status/1533380368220442625/photo/1
The Queen stopped play ?
Now that is an interesting intervention
Never thought the royals had much interest in cricket though the Queen's made a habit of meeting the touring Australians perhaps as a goodwill gesture. Amazing to think we have a monarch old enough to remember the bodyline series.
The most likely scenario for revisiting or unwinding Brexit is when those who sold it to a hapless population have a rethink. Having laboured through Dominic Cummings interview with Susanne Moore I got the feeling that even he was no longer fully convinced. But even if I'm over reading what he said if changing his mind helps in the humiliation of his previous partner he'll go for it
Many of the shysters who sold it to the public knew it was crap and didn't expect to win.
The tragedy is the gullible rubes who voted for it still think they "won" something
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
Does the Betfair market void if it’s a tie? So layers lose out?
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
Indeed contrary to what Murali said, many non white people campaigned and voted for Leave so that people of their own ethnic heritage would no longer be discriminated against.
The fact that initially at least migration numbers aren't falling seems to indicate that has been achieved. We still have immigration but now it is controlled and via merit rather than the colour of your skin or where you were born.
Imagine that, treating people according to the content of their character.
Funny, when folk wanted to treat BJ according to the content of his character they got told that there are more important things to worry about.
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
Does the Betfair market void if it’s a tie? So layers lose out?
not sure about betfair rules but bookies woudl settle on a dead heat. I suspect betfair would as well but have ,I think , seen in the past the tie offered in certain close test matches so check the market you are betting on
The most likely scenario for revisiting or unwinding Brexit is when those who sold it to a hapless population have a rethink. Having laboured through Dominic Cummings interview with Susanne Moore I got the feeling that even he was no longer fully convinced. But even if I'm over reading what he said if changing his mind helps in the humiliation of his previous partner he'll go for it
Many of the shysters who sold it to the public knew it was crap and didn't expect to win.
The tragedy is the gullible rubes who voted for it still think they "won" something
The summer may open a few eyes. Brexit's affect on trade and prices is harder to discern. A summer holiday where you have to queue for hours to get your passport stamped and get scalped on phone costs and travel insurance is already getting some saying "hang on"
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
Does the Betfair market void if it’s a tie? So layers lose out?
not sure about betfair rules but bookies woudl settle on a dead heat. I suspect betfair would as well but have ,I think , seen in the past the tie offered in certain close test matches so check the market you are betting on
I’m not betting on it, but the movements on Betfair imply a tie counts as a draw.
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
Does the Betfair market void if it’s a tie? So layers lose out?
not sure about betfair rules but bookies woudl settle on a dead heat. I suspect betfair would as well but have ,I think , seen in the past the tie offered in certain close test matches so check the market you are betting on
I’m not betting on it, but the movements on Betfair imply a tie counts as a draw.
I would be wary though unless it is confirmed thats how they would do it. Add it to the list of explaining to an american how cricket works - that a tie is different from a draw along with when a team loses 10 wickets out of 11 they are ALL OUT even though one batsmen is NOT OUT
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I don’t think that’s possible although it’s the rational option.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
EFTA members are also in SM (with FOM as a condition of course).
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I don’t think that’s possible although it’s the rational option.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
EFTA members are also in SM (with FOM as a condition of course).
Only by way of the EEA or in Switzerland's case via bilateral deals with the EU. In itself, being in EFTA doesn't give you any preferential access to the EU.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I don’t think that’s possible although it’s the rational option.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
EFTA members are also in SM (with FOM as a condition of course).
It's bizarre that people like Hannan still talk about Brexit as if we could just insist on the conditions we want(ed) with no strings attached. If the last 6 years have shown us anything it's that successive Tory governments have had no real idea what they wanted, what the implications of any arrangements might be, and that we can't negotiate our way out of a paper bag, so what we want is moot anyway.
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
Yes, a tie has only ever happened twice in Test match history. Presumably Betfair considers a tie and a draw to be the same, otherwise they would be offering a non-exhaustive list of match results?
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
The left never take a break from politics!
Logging on to PBC seems to me an odd thing to do if you want a break from politics.
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
Yes, a tie has only ever happened twice in Test match history. Presumably Betfair considers a tie and a draw to be the same, otherwise they would be offering a non-exhaustive list of match results?
bookies settle on dead heat rules though - betfair might not - be careful if punting big
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
Does the Betfair market void if it’s a tie? So layers lose out?
not sure about betfair rules but bookies woudl settle on a dead heat. I suspect betfair would as well but have ,I think , seen in the past the tie offered in certain close test matches so check the market you are betting on
I’m not betting on it, but the movements on Betfair imply a tie counts as a draw.
Betfair rules (click the i for information) say: If the official result is a Tied Match in any Test, County or Limited Overs Match then all bets on Match Odds markets will be void.
Betting on the draw is essentially a bet on the weather and it would need a downpour of Biblical proportions to start more-or-less now.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
And there lies the problem. For the vast majority Brexit is about stopping darkies and other smelly foreigners getting into the country. The masses especially the uneducated voted with their gut, their xenophobic gut!
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Europeans are whiteys.
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
The left never take a break from politics!
Logging on to PBC seems to me an odd thing to do if you want a break from politics.
But then I guess more than a few of us are only here for the cricket!
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
Yes.
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
In (proper) cricket a tie is a dead heat in a completed match, and very rare. A draw is any uncompleted match. They are completely different. From memory there have only been one or two ties in the whole of Test cricket history
Yes, a tie has only ever happened twice in Test match history. Presumably Betfair considers a tie and a draw to be the same, otherwise they would be offering a non-exhaustive list of match results?
bookies settle on dead heat rules though - betfair might not - be careful if punting big
Indeed. Doesn’t affect me though, Betfair closed my account a year or so back.
Edit: @DecrepiterJohnL has the BF rules text above - a tie is a void.
I can't read the mood of Tory MPs at all. It could still drag out for months in theory so Johnson leaving in 2023 is possibly a value bet.
He could possibly survive until May 2023 and then be ousted after the local election results are worse than 2019/2022.
If I'm right, which admittedly is often not the case, there is a deep irony here in that Boris is fighting for survival only so he can retire before the next election.
....having lost a thousand councillors and several more Westminster seats in by-elections in the process.
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
Does the Betfair market void if it’s a tie? So layers lose out?
not sure about betfair rules but bookies woudl settle on a dead heat. I suspect betfair would as well but have ,I think , seen in the past the tie offered in certain close test matches so check the market you are betting on
I’m not betting on it, but the movements on Betfair imply a tie counts as a draw.
Betfair rules (click the i for information) say: If the official result is a Tied Match in any Test, County or Limited Overs Match then all bets on Match Odds markets will be void.
Betting on the draw is essentially a bet on the weather and it would need a downpour of Biblical proportions to start more-or-less now.
Blimey, so if I lay England and it’s a tie, I wouldn’t win?
The draw is touching 1000 on betfair. Is a tie that unlikely?
a tie is not a draw for betting purposes - a tie would settle on dead heat rules .There are four possible results for a test match - win , lose , draw, tie
Does the Betfair market void if it’s a tie? So layers lose out?
not sure about betfair rules but bookies woudl settle on a dead heat. I suspect betfair would as well but have ,I think , seen in the past the tie offered in certain close test matches so check the market you are betting on
I’m not betting on it, but the movements on Betfair imply a tie counts as a draw.
Betfair rules (click the i for information) say: If the official result is a Tied Match in any Test, County or Limited Overs Match then all bets on Match Odds markets will be void.
Betting on the draw is essentially a bet on the weather and it would need a downpour of Biblical proportions to start more-or-less now.
Blimey, so if I lay England and it’s a tie, I wouldn’t win?
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
Sure! I am glad that Hunt has had a change of perspective after his days of deliberately slashing of staff numbers, going to war with trainee doctors and cutting funding for trainee nurses.
Hunt was our longest-serving Health Secretary since the old king died and knows what doesn't work, if only because he tried most of it.
We also discovered much of the stock of PPE didn't work - despite him receiving a report to this effect and not remedying it.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
Comments
1) To my mobile
2) Text
3) Email.
All 3 work.
I understand how 3) works, but how the hell does my laptop send a text? It does but I don't understand how.
And what is 1). The link appeared as a message on my phone which I can link to but I never see it again after that. Where is it stored.
I'm bloody impressed, as well as confused.
Understaffing, and underinvestment are to blame!
Wow. There is a huge transmission network and recently in the north east one transmitter blew over in a storm and people were left without TV for weeks.
We get ours via an aerial as do many others.
https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/locations/Freeview
6G started being worked on a couple of years ago and it is estimated it could be ready for launch in 2030 and would be capable of using that spectrum at a theoretical rate of one terrabyte wireless data. All major tech companies are already working on 6G.
The point is that the digital transmission network you are presently using is just one of a plethora of transmission mediums, it is obsolete and while you may currently be using it, many others aren't and we will move on from it and your current network you're still using will be switched off and auctioned off before long.
Just as happened a generation ago with the analogue transmission network that some were still using and was switched off and auctioned off.
The days of aerial TV are coming to an end. In the future it will be as alien as getting TV from analogue spectrum is now.
This kind of scorched-earth tactic has negative strategic value, and it shouldn't have happened.
Oh and before I get any whataboutery from the usual suspects, I have zero interest on lectures from people who can't also own the mistakes from their own side. I'm done listening to ultras and self-professed "hard men".
(And there was me naïvely thinking that we might all have taken a long weekend away from the usual politics)
He could possibly survive until May 2023 and then be ousted after the local election results are worse than 2019/2022.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I imagine the Freeview switchoff could be even quicker.
Loved especially the change in environment after dark, showcasing advances in production technology with the mapping projections onto Buckingham Palace, and the drone show. A serious amount of effort put into that show, demonstrated by Sigala’s performance https://youtube.com/watch?v=gHhFfsWkaMw
Now that is an interesting intervention
1. People suffering absurd delays at (mainly) southern UK airports both getting bags checked and through security on the way out, then waiting for bags return on the way back
2. People waiting for several hours in foreign airports where the ROW queue is endless and the EU speed queue walks past them.
There's little can be done about 2 and it will get even worse once the new computer system comes in later this year. Anyone from outside the EU need both to get their passports scanned, the computer synched and the date stamped. Even an efficient system will take time and for Eurotunnel they still don't know how to manage the back pressure of people this will create. Its hardly prejudicial against the UK as some claim, its us being a third country. Which our government insisted on.
On point 1, the harsh light of day is that whilst the airports are the ones who fired and failed to hire the staff, its the government's fault. The sector at the time said it would need more help and ministers said no. The sector relies on government security checks which like everything government is a disorganised shambles, and even then there just aren't enough potential staff for them to hire and get screened.
The sector - like many - could rely on eastern European labour to fill the gaps. Now that they aren't an option, patriotic Brits don't want the work or can't afford the work. So the gaps remain and the system ceases to function.
Whatabout Dublin and Schiphol say the the Brexiteers? And yes, staff shortages are happening in other countries because of Covid rapidly reshaping labour markets globally. But they are *only* suffering from that. They aren't then suffering from an acute labour pool shortage and an incompetent government unable to do security screenings.
I think its 'now' (by conference, likely by July, new leader by conference)
It isn't racism because so many of the people they don't want are as white and European as they are. They just speak Romanian.
It’s cynical marketing from her perspective - saying something uncontroversial but phrased in a way to make her sound connected
Communists, the lot of them...
The fact that initially at least migration numbers aren't falling seems to indicate that has been achieved. We still have immigration but now it is controlled and via merit rather than the colour of your skin or where you were born.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
Edit: Does Betfair even treat a tie as a draw, or as a dead heat?
Doing ok so far!
The tragedy is the gullible rubes who voted for it still think they "won" something
RIP Red Wall
Wouldn't fancy that with 7 down.
Betting on the draw is essentially a bet on the weather and it would need a downpour of Biblical proportions to start more-or-less now.
Not exactly a high bar!
Edit: @DecrepiterJohnL has the BF rules text above - a tie is a void.
Sorry Boris, but the time to go is now.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
And how does voiding the market work with the cash out option?
What a way to make the landmark, with a century at Lord’s.