On those figures, you'd get quite a few more SNP wins than usual on the regional list, if they didn't do well in any particular area on the FPTP. Difficult to judge without knowing the regional breakdowns on the FPTP side.
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
That was Labour refusing to support any SNP motions even when they were Labour motions to begin with (the Bain Principle), and the LDs, Tories, Greens etc horsetrading (eg over student tuition fees or polis on the beat).
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
Barty seems to be ignoring the very large elephant in the room.
BT Sport were also paying Gary Lineker some serious wonga for working for them from 2013 onwards.
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
57% for the three unionist parties. Quite a thing....
Are British nationalist delighted with just 57% support?! With the backing of the state broadcaster and 99% of the MSM? And you can only manage 57%? Fill yer breeks.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
They are not subject to the market - the licence fee insulates them.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
Pitiful
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.
Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless
And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies
It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic
Liberal lawyers going mad or staying sane does not change the law.
If you want the policy objectives that the govt is pushing with their policy you need to be angry with the govt for not leaving the refugee convention not liberal lawyers.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Have you heard of international law?
Yes. Its a bad joke.
Parliament can override international law.
It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.
We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.
If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.
Or the UN Declaration on Human Rights, that asserts the rights of all human beings to live in dignity regardless of ethnic origin, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or the Geneva Conventions. Do you think the sovereign body in any sovereign country ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to, so long as it only does so domestically? So for example the Brazilian parliament could decide to exterminate the Yanomami people and they shouldn't be held responsible before an international court if they did?
Yes I 100% think any sovereign body ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to do so, domestically.
If the Brazilian Parliament chose to exterminate a people then that would be a matter for international relations to resolve, not lawyers or courts. Just as China's acts of genocide against the Rohingya and others.
A genuinely robust international legal system that punishes and deters such atrocities, regardless of who commits them and where they happen, is a challenging aspiration, but it's a bit odd to say it isn't a worthwhile one.
Its not a worthwhile one, because the meaning of atrocity changes. The problem is what's good today can be awful in the future, or vice-versa/
The law should be a living, breathing, and most importantly evolving body - which is what Parliament is for.
If you go back just ten years it was illegal for two men to marry each other in Scotland. If you go back ~fifty years it was illegal for two men to love each other and could result in imprisonment. If you go back hundreds of years, it could result in execution.
You operate as if international law is "good" so should be set in stone, but the law has never been that way. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with the madness that is the US Second Amendment and routine mass murder in schools. Ossifying laws in stone is how you end up with gays being stoned to death.
If an international law signed in the 50s put a prohibition on same sex marriage, then I think Parliament would be well within its rights to say that notwithstanding the law we are legalising it. If an international law signed in the 18th century had a Second Amendment style ruling then following Dunblane I'd think that Parliament is perfectly entitled to say that the law needs to change.
We should seek to tackle atrocities internationally, but that needs to be done via international relations, not laws locking in the views of the past to be enforced in the future.
A robust and dynamic international legal system then. One which moves with the times as all good legal systems should. To inter alia punish and deter atrocities. As I say, most odd to not at least grant this to be a worthwhile aspiration. Still, you're you. With your reverence for the Nation State.
It is not a reverence for the Nation State, it is a reverence for democracy. Democracy is attached to the Nation State.
Our legal system evolves with the times due to Parliament, and we have routine elections to Parliament.
If you want international law to evolve with the times and not be ossified to the past saying that cannabis must be illegal/gays must be stoned/second amendment etc then without a global Parliament how do you achieve that?
And if there is a global Parliament, then haven't you just globalised all the issues you decry with the Nation State?
If a local council in a deeply conservative part of the country wished to ban homosexuality in accordance with local demand we would say to them and their voters, "Nope, sorry, not on. There's a higher law against you doing that."
IOW some things are too important to be left to the voters. It's therefore not just about democracy. It's about where is the best place in an ideal world - since I did say 'aspiration' remember - for certain fundamental human rights to be protected.
Asserting this is always and forever the nation state, ie there can never be anything so important it can't be left to voters at this level of aggregation, is illogical. It comes from, as I say, revering the nation state itself. Which is what you do, what many people do tbf, odd as it might appear to me.
A local Council is not a country, so can not deprive people of national rights. That is the nation protecting them, yes.
If a country wants to ban homosexuality it can. I would absolutely deplore that, I would be against that, I would be disgusted - but it would be able to do so and many do.
The way to prevent that is to have educated voters who would vote out any Government so repellent, not rely upon flawed and failed international institutions to do so.
Nothing is too important to be left to the voters. Only the voters protect our rights.
You're still not explaining why (as a long term aspiration) we wouldn't want basic human rights to be protected at a level higher than the nation state.
You seem to revere it - the nation state - and I find this odd.
I've explained it repeatedly. 😕
The higher the authority the more dangerous it is. The more out of touch, the more remote, the more inflexible. If we had a solitary global government with solitary global rights we'd probably still have abortion illegal as its murder, homosexuality outlawed etc - why would you welcome that?
You seem to think global = good but there's no evidence for that and actually global changes in liberalism seriously lag forerunning nation states becoming more liberal. The UK to this day is more liberal than most of the world, so if you want a global standard you either want our standards to worsen to the lowest common denominator, or you want to be an imperialist and compel other nations to our standards against their wishes.
If higher necessarily means more dangerous re protecting human rights why don't you argue for this power to reside at (say) local government level?
The point is we get to vote in or out the people who makes the rules, we wouldn't get that with a supranational body and would just have to take their pronouncements. The fault in your thinking is believing that any supranational body would agree with all your views when it almost certainly wouldn't. Somethings would not be legal that you think ought to be and other things you think shouldn't be legal would be. Which was why I asked you if you would trust finns, danes and romanians to be on this supranational body....a question you didn't answer
I did reply (PT) but ok, I think we're still at cross purposes. I'm not arguing for some new global order world government! I'm merely probing why people believe the NATION STATE is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to protecting basic human rights. That we wouldn't (assuming it were feasible) want them protected at a higher level than that. I find this odd.
Already told you why.....no one should be able to impose laws on us that we can't vote out. I would also go as far as to say I think the nation state is in itself to large for most countries because democracy is too dilute. For example I think the uk could do with being divided into 4 equal parts from a democratic point of view.
Your view as previously stated however was that human rights were too important to leave purely to voters which implies this supranational body you envisage is not democratically accountable in the least
The smaller (demos) the better as regards the protection of human rights? Sorry, I just don't see it. But we've hit 'repeat and restate' phase, so thanks for the exchange.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
Barty seems to be ignoring the very large elephant in the room.
BT Sport were also paying Gary Lineker some serious wonga for working for them from 2013 onwards.
Exactly. Barty can likewise choose to refuse a 5p/hour offer from the BBC in favour of keeping his existing job.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
Its a should question rather than a contractual question being discussed. I am sure HR forums are available somewhere.
NOOOOOO!!!! Just send me to Conservative Home, anything but an HR forum.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
The EU could suspend security co-operation aswell as extradition agreements if the UK leaves the ECHR . This would also breach the Good Friday Agreement . And put the UK in the company of Russia and Belarus .
It’s utterly shameful that a section of Tory MPs are so flippant at the repercussions of leaving the ECHR.
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
57% for the three unionist parties. Quite a thing....
Are British nationalist delighted with just 57% support?! With the backing of the state broadcaster and 99% of the MSM? And you can only manage 57%? Fill yer breeks.
You're sounding increasingly desperate, as you should, as independence disappears into the long grass
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
Barty seems to be ignoring the very large elephant in the room.
BT Sport were also paying Gary Lineker some serious wonga for working for them from 2013 onwards.
Good for them. Since they're raising the money privately, that is a market force. The BBC is not, so it is not.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
The EU could suspend security co-operation aswell as extradition agreements if the UK leaves the ECHR . This would also breach the Good Friday Agreement . And put the UK in the company of Russia and Belarus .
It’s utterly shameful that a section of Tory MPs are so flippant at the repercussions of leaving the ECHR.
Tony Blair yesterday held out the prospect of Britain withdrawing from its obligations under the European convention on human rights if its latest wave of asylum reforms failed to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers.
He listed a range of measures just coming into force under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, but said: "If the measures don't work, then we will have to consider further measures, including fundamentally looking at the obligations we have under the convention on human rights."
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
57% for the three unionist parties. Quite a thing....
Are British nationalist delighted with just 57% support?! With the backing of the state broadcaster and 99% of the MSM? And you can only manage 57%? Fill yer breeks.
You're sounding increasingly desperate, as you should, as independence disappears into the long grass
Yawn.
Keep telling yourself your porkies.
First rule of politics: never believe your own propaganda.
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
57% for the three unionist parties. Quite a thing....
Are British nationalist delighted with just 57% support?! With the backing of the state broadcaster and 99% of the MSM? And you can only manage 57%? Fill yer breeks.
You're sounding increasingly desperate, as you should, as independence disappears into the long grass
Yawn.
Keep telling yourself your porkies.
First rule of politics: never believe your own propaganda.
The EU could suspend security co-operation aswell as extradition agreements if the UK leaves the ECHR . This would also breach the Good Friday Agreement . And put the UK in the company of Russia and Belarus .
It’s utterly shameful that a section of Tory MPs are so flippant at the repercussions of leaving the ECHR.
Tony Blair yesterday held out the prospect of Britain withdrawing from its obligations under the European convention on human rights if its latest wave of asylum reforms failed to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers.
He listed a range of measures just coming into force under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, but said: "If the measures don't work, then we will have to consider further measures, including fundamentally looking at the obligations we have under the convention on human rights."
You’re quoting something 20 years old as a means to support the current rancid government . I would say the same if Labour proposed this policy. Leaving the ECHR would be shameful , no ifs no buts .
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
Alternatively, the poll scares the shit out of the SNP membership (thank goodness) and we make the sensible choice and ditch the current FAV Yousaf. He’s clearly not hitting the mark.
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
57% for the three unionist parties. Quite a thing....
Are British nationalist delighted with just 57% support?! With the backing of the state broadcaster and 99% of the MSM? And you can only manage 57%? Fill yer breeks.
Our thoughts are with you at this difficult time Stuart.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Must admit didn't have Stuart down as a Tartan Tory.
I’m a former Moderate Party councillor. Remember Cameron’s pal Fredrik Reinfeldt? Great guy. Very pro-immigration 😉
I’ve stated about a hundred times on here that I self-define as centre-right. Sorry if you happened to miss that.
Though at the last election the anti immigration Sweden Democrats got 20.5% to 19.1% for the Moderates and the Moderates are now in government with confidence and supply from the Sweden Democrats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Swedish_general_election
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
57% for the three unionist parties. Quite a thing....
Are British nationalist delighted with just 57% support?! With the backing of the state broadcaster and 99% of the MSM? And you can only manage 57%? Fill yer breeks.
Our thoughts are with you at this difficult time Stuart.
No need. I’m thoroughly enjoying myself. Life is sweet.
Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.
There is a tax tribunal where Gary's argument is that he was an employee so the BBC are responsible for the tax on the payments they paid to the partnership through which he works.
The EU could suspend security co-operation aswell as extradition agreements if the UK leaves the ECHR . This would also breach the Good Friday Agreement . And put the UK in the company of Russia and Belarus .
It’s utterly shameful that a section of Tory MPs are so flippant at the repercussions of leaving the ECHR.
Tony Blair yesterday held out the prospect of Britain withdrawing from its obligations under the European convention on human rights if its latest wave of asylum reforms failed to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers.
He listed a range of measures just coming into force under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, but said: "If the measures don't work, then we will have to consider further measures, including fundamentally looking at the obligations we have under the convention on human rights."
You’re quoting something 20 years old as a means to support the current rancid government . I would say the same if Labour proposed this policy. Leaving the ECHR would be shameful , no ifs no buts .
Blair was in government and it was the last Labour government
Therefore the last Labour prime minister toyed with the same policy and you think it is irrelevant
Indeed. Which is why I left the Moderate Party when the sexist shits unceremoniously ditched the fabulous Anna Kinberg Batra in 2017. I voted Centre Party last year.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
Lineker is entitled to express his views, wrong-headed though they often are.
In 1930’s Germany, the authorities used such terms as vermin, plague rats, bacilli, poisonous fungus etc. to demonise their enemies. Such language has not been used by the current government.
Lineker May spout crap but he is no fool. He is playing to his loyal twitter following, and parts of the media, who lap it up. He has a high profile, a loyal following, and this is all part of his brand.
Prior to this he was a bit of a joke figure best known for threatening to sue his sons school due to his sons lack of academic ability and being subject of various unsubstantiated ‘blinds’ on gossip sites.
He even got a free pass, as did Gary Neville (apart from on HIGNFY) for taking cash to go to Qatar.
a)The public aren't that fussed about a small number of people entering the UK on boats
or
b)The majority of the public's views on the crossings are indefensible and should be ignored
Personally I don't think a majority of people will ever be reconciled to migrants entering the country from France on boats unless there is a war in that country (unlikely). What you might be able to do is have an agreement to take more refugees or asylum seekers from other countries that have taken proportionately more than we have, so long as there is a clear plan attached to how we manage it.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
If he slagged off Dirty Leeds though at least it would be something that most people would agree with him on.
Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.
True, although with an IR35 hat on to all-intents-and-purposes he appears to be as good as one to the public.
The EU could suspend security co-operation aswell as extradition agreements if the UK leaves the ECHR . This would also breach the Good Friday Agreement . And put the UK in the company of Russia and Belarus .
It’s utterly shameful that a section of Tory MPs are so flippant at the repercussions of leaving the ECHR.
Tony Blair yesterday held out the prospect of Britain withdrawing from its obligations under the European convention on human rights if its latest wave of asylum reforms failed to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers.
He listed a range of measures just coming into force under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, but said: "If the measures don't work, then we will have to consider further measures, including fundamentally looking at the obligations we have under the convention on human rights."
You’re quoting something 20 years old as a means to support the current rancid government . I would say the same if Labour proposed this policy. Leaving the ECHR would be shameful , no ifs no buts .
Blair was in government and it was the last Labour government
Therefore the last Labour prime minister toyed with the same policy and you think it is irrelevant
Tone was never shy of coming over all authoritarian if he thought it could divide the Tories and endear himself to the Murdoch press. He did a similar thing when Dave and DD were on the side of protecting habeas corpus.
Is this a first for me? Three by-elections tomorrow: SNP defence in Edinburgh, Lab defences in Hounslow and Haringey.
No.
By the way, the Edinburgh by-election is hardly an “SNP defence” when we came a very poor second last time around:
Liberal Democrats 49.8% SNP 18.7% Con 16% Lab 7.8% Grn 6.9% Family 0.8%
Nailed on SLD win, meaning they’ll have all three councillors in the ward.
A feature of the Scottish local government system. In a three-member ward the defending party could be any of the 1,2,or 3 elected before. Also it is very rare for one party to win all 3 seats while it is usual in England and Wales.
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
Alternatively, the poll scares the shit out of the SNP membership (thank goodness) and we make the sensible choice and ditch the current FAV Yousaf. He’s clearly not hitting the mark.
Interesting point. However surely Kate burnt her bridges with too many folk last night? Including the Murrells.
I'm sceptical that the SCONS are on 22%. But even if so, I suspect a lot that vote is going to be very squeezable in Lab/SNP contests in the central belt. Voting for the SCONS would be a complete waste of time in Motherwell or Inverclyde.
Jenrick was wrong to call for Lineker to resign although I believe his wife is the child of holocaust survivors and the comparison may be personal for him.
Political Parties' Favourability in Scotland (2-5 March):
Labour +10% (+3) SNP -1% (-13) Plaid Cymru -11% (-4) Liberal Democrats -13% (-1) Green Party -17% (-6) Conservative Party -34% (+4) Reform UK -34% (–) Alba -47% (-8)
Political Parties' Favourability in Scotland (2-5 March):
Labour +10% (+3) SNP -1% (-13) Plaid Cymru -11% (-4) Liberal Democrats -13% (-1) Green Party -17% (-6) Conservative Party -34% (+4) Reform UK -34% (–) Alba -47% (-8)
Political Parties' Favourability in Scotland (2-5 March):
Labour +10% (+3) SNP -1% (-13) Plaid Cymru -11% (-4) Liberal Democrats -13% (-1) Green Party -17% (-6) Conservative Party -34% (+4) Reform UK -34% (–) Alba -47% (-8)
When I first met my Scottish family in 1962 each and everyone were Labour supporters and I should say over 200 attended our wedding in 1964 so not a small family
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
Sky are competing in the open recruitment market.
The BBC are not, since they're not generating their revenue on the open market.
If politicians vote themselves a 25% pay rise, to be paid out of our taxes, is that market forces?
Political Parties' Favourability in Scotland (2-5 March):
Labour +10% (+3) SNP -1% (-13) Plaid Cymru -11% (-4) Liberal Democrats -13% (-1) Green Party -17% (-6) Conservative Party -34% (+4) Reform UK -34% (–) Alba -47% (-8)
Big worry for the SNP is that Labour no longer seem to be judged as 'Red Tories'. Which suggests much of their progressive support may switch if Forbes becomes FM.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
Political Parties' Favourability in Scotland (2-5 March):
Labour +10% (+3) SNP -1% (-13) Plaid Cymru -11% (-4) Liberal Democrats -13% (-1) Green Party -17% (-6) Conservative Party -34% (+4) Reform UK -34% (–) Alba -47% (-8)
Big worry for the SNP is that Labour no longer seem to be judged as 'Red Tories'. Which suggests much of their progressive support may switch if Forbes becomes FM.
You misunderstand why SLab were (nearly) wiped out in 2015.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
The only time I recall that I personally needed treatment in a hospital I was seen by a student, in a teaching hospital.
My daughter was delivered by a student midwife, in a teaching hospital.
Top surgeons should be used if top surgeons are absolutely necessary. If not, then yes I am very, very happy to be seen by a student.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.
a)The public aren't that fussed about a small number of people entering the UK on boats
or
b)The majority of the public's views on the crossings are indefensible and should be ignored
Personally I don't think a majority of people will ever be reconciled to migrants entering the country from France on boats unless there is a war in that country (unlikely). What you might be able to do is have an agreement to take more refugees or asylum seekers from other countries that have taken proportionately more than we have, so long as there is a clear plan attached to how we manage it.
Coherent narratives are based on coherence in a set of facts, a history, a direction and a possible outcome or solution.
Due to reasons these are not available here. This will be true as long as there are: mobility, liberal democracies and badlands.
Does the BBC worry about having two active Tories as DG and Chairman if impartiality is crucial? This is going to damage the Tory Party without a doubt. Even if 30% like the idea of getting rid of asylum seekers it doesn't follow that they'll think the Tories any less 'nasty' for introducing it.
I find it impossible to really get exercised by arguments about Lineker. As an employee of the BBC standards generally are that they should avoid overt political comments, and I don't think that is unreasonable, but it's clear he doesn't want to do that and to date they have had no interest in making him avoid it.
I like him as a presenter, so if they sacked him over it that'd be a shame, but not actually unfair either, since if you don't want to be constrained by BBC policy you don't have to work for it.
Conversely, sacking him won't shut him up so the goverment won't have achieved anything other than pissing off people who may like their policies but don't see the big deal if the football guy mouths off on twitter - most celebrities reveal themsevels to be at best ordinary and at worst pretty dumb when they opine on issues outside their area of expertise.
So they all might as well just retain the status quo, with a 'he shouldn't say that if he's working for the BBC' wrist slap, then he does it again and there's outrage, then repeat.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
Ah ha.
But Mr Lineker is not a BBC employee.
HMRC claim he is
And they're almost certainly right. Not an employee, my arse. Can't stand the insulting nature of that kind of tax dodge on the 'not an employee, honest' type.
I'm sceptical that the SCONS are on 22%. But even if so, I suspect a lot that vote is going to be very squeezable in Lab/SNP contests in the central belt. Voting for the SCONS would be a complete waste of time in Motherwell or Inverclyde.
The point is that the Tory vote will likely be resilient in their key areas (NE and S) while SLABs will be concentrated in Central Belt. This is potentially v bad news for SNP in FPTP contest like a Westminster General election.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
One doesn't need to be of the people to speak for the people.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.
If there was most managers would earn less than their underlings
Comments
All Voters
Kate Forbes 25%
Humza Yousef 18%
Ash Regan 14%
Don't know 44%
2021 SNP Voters
Humza Yousef 27%
Kate Forbes 21%
Ash Regan 13%
Don't know 39%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633520512327626753
No' leads by 9 points.
Scotland Independence Referendum Voting Intention (2-5 March):
No, against Independence: 51% (+6)
Yes, for Independence: 42% (-7)
Don't Know: 8% (+3)
Changes +/- 26-27 November
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633512910445228033
All Voters
Kate Forbes 25%
Humza Yousef 18%
Ash Regan 14%
Don't know 44%
2021 SNP Voters
Humza Yousef 27%
Kate Forbes 21%
Ash Regan 13%
Don't know 39%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633520512327626753
BT Sport were also paying Gary Lineker some serious wonga for working for them from 2013 onwards.
Sleazy broken Scottish Nationalism on the slide.
There's a lot more interesting stuff in that Redfield & Wilton poll.
Looks like if the SNP want to remain in office they need to stop banging on about Scottish independence.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
It’s utterly shameful that a section of Tory MPs are so flippant at the repercussions of leaving the ECHR.
I’ve stated about a hundred times on here that I self-define as centre-right. Sorry if you happened to miss that.
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
Tony Blair yesterday held out the prospect of Britain withdrawing from its obligations under the European convention on human rights if its latest wave of asylum reforms failed to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers.
He listed a range of measures just coming into force under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, but said: "If the measures don't work, then we will have to consider further measures, including fundamentally looking at the obligations we have under the convention on human rights."
Keep telling yourself your porkies.
First rule of politics: never believe your own propaganda.
Do Scottish voters support or oppose Nicola Sturgeon's decision to resign? (2-5 March)
All Respondents
Support 58%
Oppose 18%
2019 SNP Voters
Support 51%
Oppose 24%
AND
Nicola Sturgeon's final approval rating in Scotland is +2%.
Nicola Sturgeon Approval Rating in Scotland (2-5 March):
Approve: 42% (-7)
Disapprove: 40% (+7)
Net: +2 (-14)
Changes +/- 26-27 November
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations?
Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage?
Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Swedish_general_election
This is only a procedual hearing, not a full decision of the facts.
Therefore the last Labour prime minister toyed with the same policy and you think it is irrelevant
(He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
Prior to this he was a bit of a joke figure best known for threatening to sue his sons school due to his sons lack of academic ability and being subject of various unsubstantiated ‘blinds’ on gossip sites.
He even got a free pass, as did Gary Neville (apart from on HIGNFY) for taking cash to go to Qatar.
a)The public aren't that fussed about a small number of people entering the UK on boats
or
b)The majority of the public's views on the crossings are indefensible and should be ignored
Personally I don't think a majority of people will ever be reconciled to migrants entering the country from France on boats unless there is a war in that country (unlikely). What you might be able to do is have an agreement to take more refugees or asylum seekers from other countries that have taken proportionately more than we have, so long as there is a clear plan attached to how we manage it.
@JMagosh
Redfield's Scotland data looks odd and outlier-y.
Before you incorporate likelihood to vote (and before you exclude don't knows), Scottish Labour and the SNP are actually *tied*, on 30%!
But weirdly, a crazy percentage (33%) of 2019 SLab voters say they're unlikely to vote.
Josh
@JMagosh
·
40m
So instead of being tied with the SNP, you get a 10 pt SNP lead.
Worth noting GB-wide Westminster polls don't typically have Labour voters less likely to vote than for other parties, often more.
Redfield's last Scotland poll had 85% of 2019 SLab voters 'certain' to vote.
The Economy 71%
The NHS 63%
Immigration 21%
Scottish Independence 21% 👈
Brexit 16%
The environment 16%
Education 15%
Taxation 13%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633525536730546177
But even if so, I suspect a lot that vote is going to be very squeezable in Lab/SNP contests in the central belt. Voting for the SCONS would be a complete waste of time in Motherwell or Inverclyde.
It seems the Scots have the same priorities as the rest of the UK
Starmer may not be a dud.
Political Parties' Favourability in Scotland (2-5 March):
Labour +10% (+3)
SNP -1% (-13)
Plaid Cymru -11% (-4)
Liberal Democrats -13% (-1)
Green Party -17% (-6)
Conservative Party -34% (+4)
Reform UK -34% (–)
Alba -47% (-8)
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1633530577969356801
When I first met my Scottish family in 1962 each and everyone were Labour supporters and I should say over 200 attended our wedding in 1964 so not a small family
In fact, maybe that's why there's the noise.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And yes, I have bets on.
The BBC are not, since they're not generating their revenue on the open market.
If politicians vote themselves a 25% pay rise, to be paid out of our taxes, is that market forces?
But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role.
You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
My daughter was delivered by a student midwife, in a teaching hospital.
Top surgeons should be used if top surgeons are absolutely necessary. If not, then yes I am very, very happy to be seen by a student.
Due to reasons these are not available here. This will be true as long as there are: mobility, liberal democracies and badlands.
I like him as a presenter, so if they sacked him over it that'd be a shame, but not actually unfair either, since if you don't want to be constrained by BBC policy you don't have to work for it.
Conversely, sacking him won't shut him up so the goverment won't have achieved anything other than pissing off people who may like their policies but don't see the big deal if the football guy mouths off on twitter - most celebrities reveal themsevels to be at best ordinary and at worst pretty dumb when they opine on issues outside their area of expertise.
So they all might as well just retain the status quo, with a 'he shouldn't say that if he's working for the BBC' wrist slap, then he does it again and there's outrage, then repeat.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
https://youtu.be/jlJ9z_LowBI
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
If this is genuine it is utterly repugnant. 🤮
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072