Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
Isn’t the reality with the shit in the rivers, that in order to not have shit in the rivers, requires replacing billions of miles of sewage pipes at an astronomical cost and decades of disruption?
Like, is there the democratic will to double everyone’s water bill for the next twenty years to actually fix the problem?
I suspect not.
Rivers are actually a problem in England and Wales.
We pump and drain far too much shit into them, for a first world country, and far too many of them are "private" and totally inaccessible to people.
I'd say there's also a problem with lack of access for bathing/swimming, which I'd love. But the problem with that is that if you get too many feral chavs and their dogs going there that's just as bad and will introduce all sorts of nasty chemical and bodily pollution back into the rivers, as well as tonnes of litter.
Spoken like a true Tory Boy. Harry Enfield eat your heart out.
Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
I liked him, and I'm not a great follower of the sport.
His enthusiasm was genuine, and even his gaffes were endearingly amusing. He didn't take himself too seriously, as evidenced by the time he did a commentary for Wacky Races. He also did a warm and revealing Desert Island discs.
I think he was a good commentator, albeit in a unique and personal style.
Mr. Doethur, Allen was hamstrung by ITV trying to force him into a Murray Walker-mould of excitement rather than being himself.
Mr. Sandpit, many commentators seem to forget people are there for sport rather than their witty presence.
How far is that the case? For the serious expert follower of the sport, probably. For those watching as a "national event", or even listening in to a conversation between mates while some sport goes on (see TMS), rather less so. And I suspect that there are more of the second than the first, especially if we're thinking about BBC One late on Saturday night.
In a world where multiple streams are easy to do, it's surprising that "just the sport, no witty banter" streams are so rare. If they were popular, you'd expect someone entrepreneurial to offer them.
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
If we're including commentators, I actually preferred James Allen for F1 although he wasn't great as a trackside talking head. But the granddaddy of them all was Peter O'Sullevan, and he never did punditry so far as I know.
Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.
Aberdeenshire Central Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.
Listening to The Vietnam War: an Intimate History on audible at Danang Airport. Few better places to listen to it
It’s the book version of that great Ken Burns documentary
One detail has struck me: re the intensity of the US bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail (in terms of density more bombs were dropped on these jungle tracks than in any war before)
Sometimes the US soldiers would come across an entire platoon of viet cong, all dead, in a jungle clearing, and apparently all unharmed. Except that the concussive power of the explosions had blasted the eyeballs out of all the Vietnamese heads
I've seen (in person and very close up) the remains of people killed by blast overpressure from a GBU-24 (2,000lb of precision guided high explosive freedom) and all had their eyes if little else so the VC eyes were probably eaten by the local wildlife or something.
Yes, pressure waves destroy internal organs, but I cannot see a reason why eyes should pop out. I suspect a tall tale that became myth.
But but but Sean read it. And Sean believed it. So it must be true.
You are undoubtedly a fraud. PB hereby removes you licence to practice medicine.
Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
I liked him, and I'm not a great follower of the sport.
His enthusiasm was genuine, and even his gaffes were endearingly amusing. He didn't take himself too seriously, as evidenced by the time he did a commentary for Wacky Races. He also did a warm and revealing Desert Island discs.
I think he was a good commentator, albeit in a unique and personal style.
Good morning everybody. Murray Walker was also a very nice chap, according to my son who knew him at Formula One.
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
You did exactly this yesterday. Quoted a poll that was flattering to the SNP. Failed to mention it was a sub sample
Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
I liked him, and I'm not a great follower of the sport.
His enthusiasm was genuine, and even his gaffes were endearingly amusing. He didn't take himself too seriously, as evidenced by the time he did a commentary for Wacky Races. He also did a warm and revealing Desert Island discs.
I think he was a good commentator, albeit in a unique and personal style.
Year ago, I encountered MW. I was heading home from work early sick with a bad case of flu. He was in the same carriage.
In my fever, pale and compromised state, I became fixated on him. “It’s Murray Walker, I’m sure” I thought. I must have been staring him out and looked even more dodgy than usual. He got up and left for the next carriage.
Mr. Punter, nothing can beat "There's nothing wrong with the car except that it's on fire."
Mr. Romford, to be fair, businesses can make bad decisions that seem inexplicable. Ratner, or, more recently, the MCU and Star Wars diluting their brands by subpar films and excessive content at the expense of quality.
Going back a bit, but Star Wars junking the expanded universe when it was bought by Disney was just nuts. A film series based on Zahn's Thrawn trilogy would've been a slam dunk box office success.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
You need to look at more data than this before drawing such conclusions. It's possible that large variations in the turnout filter from poll-to-poll are normal for the R&W polls, such that a rogue poll with an unusually uncertain sample of 2019GE Labour voters is not so outlandish.
Looking at two data points is enough to spark interest in looking further, but I personally wouldn't be publishing on that scanty basis myself.
You'd almost be better off aggregating subsamples.
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?
Really good article which explains the SVB failure, for those interested.
https://www.netinterest.co/p/the-demise-of-silicon-valley-bank ...Driven by the boom in venture capital funding, many of Silicon Valley’s customers became flush with cash over 2020 and 2021. Between the end of 2019 and the first quarter of 2022, the bank’s deposit balances more than tripled to $198 billion (including a small acquisition of Boston Private Financial Holdings). This compares with industry deposit growth of “only” 37% over the period. Around two-thirds of the deposits were non-interest-bearing demand deposits and the rest offered a small rate of interest. All-in, at the end of 2022, the cost of Silicon Valley’s deposits was 1.17% (up from 0.04% at the end of 2021).
The bank invested the bulk of these deposits in securities. It adopted a two-pronged strategy: to shelter some of its liquidity in shorter duration available-for-sale securities, while reaching for yield with a longer duration held-to-maturity book. On a cost basis, the shorter duration AFS book grew from $13.9 billion at the end of 2019 to $27.3 billion at its peak in the first quarter of 2022; the longer duration HTM book grew by much more: from $13.8 billion to $98.7 billion. Part of the increase reflects a transfer of $8.8 billion of securities from AFS to HTM, but most reflected market purchases...
Note Trump's abolition of the requirement for bank 'stress tests' probably didn't help.
TLDR
Most banks make money by taking deposits (borrowing short) and lending long - this is the interest spread and is effectively a play on duration. When interest rates go up they are protected because most loans are priced as a spread to the Fed interbank rate.
SVB’s clients have been very cashed up because of the tech boom. And they had limited lending opportunities (many companies are unprofitable). So they took the surplus and invested in long dated government bond. The issue is that when interest rates go up the price of bonds falls.
With the funding market being closed for the last year SVB had to sell bonds as companies weee continuing to spend their cash. It was taking a loss - which panicked some of the VCs and triggered a classic run on the bank
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
You did exactly this yesterday. Quoted a poll that was flattering to the SNP. Failed to mention it was a sub sample
Didn’t this get you banned at one point? Tsk
Amusingly, you did exactly that yourself: claiming that the poll showed a 20% drop in SNP VI. (The published tables in reality showed an SNP figure of 47%.) It must have slipped your mind.
According to Twitter , "Following yesterday’s suspension of Match Of The Day presenter, Gary Lineker, and the subsequent decision by Lineker’s co-commentators to boycott tonight’s programme in a show of solidarity, the band who play the iconic theme tune at the beginning of each programme have announced that they will be downing their brass instruments until the popular presenter is reinstated."
More seriously, that was Keith Mansfield and Alan Hawkshaw, I think, who were responsible for much more surprisingly hip and still fashionable material such as this, to add to today's surreality, played here in the British library a couple of years back :
Mr. Punter, nothing can beat "There's nothing wrong with the car except that it's on fire."
Mr. Romford, to be fair, businesses can make bad decisions that seem inexplicable. Ratner, or, more recently, the MCU and Star Wars diluting their brands by subpar films and excessive content at the expense of quality.
Going back a bit, but Star Wars junking the expanded universe when it was bought by Disney was just nuts. A film series based on Zahn's Thrawn trilogy would've been a slam dunk box office success.
Do you remember an occasion (Monaco, I think) when one of the leading cars stopped in the tunnel shortly before the end of the race? Walker exploded with excitement saying it must be some sort of mechanical failure and ran through a few of the more likely issues before James Hunt quietly informed him 'He's run out of petrol, Murray.'
Excellent work Wulfrun Phil. I’d be wary of reading too much into this poll. It’s possible the error is in what’s shown before the final output.
If this “error” (we await R&W response) is explained, will Wulfrun and PB will devote A NEW THREAD to the apology?
Ho ho.
Punters beware.
What do they have to apologise for ? The anomaly is notable, and is noted. Other than evidently driving you to distraction, no harm done.
Of course we'll have to see what other polls show before the explanation for the anomaly, and the state of Scottish opinion becomes clear.
The thread header implies R&W are guilty of trying to hide a large and obvious error in their data, an accusation that is not supported by the evidence presented.
A bit more effort is required on the part of people throwing such insinuations around.
As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
Get used to it. The SNP are spent. 8 yrs of Nicola Surgeon is enough to drive anyone to vote anything but SNP.
Are you contending that SNP voting intention is in fact zero? This is truly groundbreaking work. Please show your working.
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
Isn’t the reality with the shit in the rivers, that in order to not have shit in the rivers, requires replacing billions of miles of sewage pipes at an astronomical cost and decades of disruption?
Like, is there the democratic will to double everyone’s water bill for the next twenty years to actually fix the problem?
I suspect not.
Rivers are actually a problem in England and Wales.
We pump and drain far too much shit into them, for a first world country, and far too many of them are "private" and totally inaccessible to people.
I'd say there's also a problem with lack of access for bathing/swimming, which I'd love. But the problem with that is that if you get too many feral chavs and their dogs going there that's just as bad and will introduce all sorts of nasty chemical and bodily pollution back into the rivers, as well as tonnes of litter.
Spoken like a true Tory Boy. Harry Enfield eat your heart out.
I don't see where the heck you get that from. CR's highlighted an issue (access to rivers) that is not a traditional Tory issue, and then also highlights an issue with it.
And I know you're hardly a Scottish expert, but Scotland's had issues with their access legislation:
So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?
The Royal Funeral stream with just the events - no commentary - was about 1,000 times better than with some idiot droning on repetitively.
Similarly, many sports events would be enhanced by just letting us watch the action. Virgo is the worst offender as he will not STFU and let us just watch, but he's far from alone.
As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
This kind of finding only make you wonder why independence hasn't come one inch closer to happening in the entire period since 2014.
Perhaps independence is to a substantial fraction of the Scottish electorate as chastity was to St Augustine...?
The English Supreme Court already answered that one. It’s official: the Scots are colonial subjects.
As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
This kind of finding only make you wonder why independence hasn't come one inch closer to happening in the entire period since 2014.
Perhaps independence is to a substantial fraction of the Scottish electorate as chastity was to St Augustine...?
The English Supreme Court already answered that one. It’s official: the Scots are colonial subjects.
(1) The Supreme Court isn't English
(2) They actually ruled the exact opposite - that the Scots are *not* colonial subjects.
I'm starting to wonder if putting you and Suella Braverman in a room together would lead to a moment like the ending of Animal Farm.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
Get used to it. The SNP are spent. 8 yrs of Nicola Surgeon is enough to drive anyone to vote anything but SNP.
They'll win the next GE in Scotland at a canter. Watch.
Credit where credit is due: Keir Starmer is doing his damnedest to bring that to fruition.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Morning all! A satisfying amount of snow fell last night, adding lovely fluffy stuff onto the frozen crunchy layer. With the same forecast again tonight! Happily no plans to go anywhere this weekend...
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
You did exactly this yesterday. Quoted a poll that was flattering to the SNP. Failed to mention it was a sub sample
Didn’t this get you banned at one point? Tsk
Amusingly, you did exactly that yourself: claiming that the poll showed a 20% drop in SNP VI. (The published tables in reality showed an SNP figure of 47%.) It must have slipped your mind.
That was a joke. But you’d require a sense of humour to notice that it was a joke. So I do see your problem
No one from army of senior BBC managers available to defend the Lineker decision on the Today programme..They hide away..unable to cope when their meek, naive inepitude becomes the story. They’re the problem for the BBC..not Lineker or some of the other presenters they’ve lost.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
Was Peter Alliss actually contracted to the Beeb though? I think he was actually contracted to an American broadcaster whose stream the BBC used, although I could easily be wrong.
If we're talking about Famous Commentators My Folks Knew, my grandfather actually knew Peter Alliss quite well. He used to live near (and was a member of) Parkstone Golf Club when Alliss was the pro there.
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's actually funny.
Would have been funnier if there was on article on Johnson next to it...
So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?
The Royal Funeral stream with just the events - no commentary - was about 1,000 times better than with some idiot droning on repetitively.
Similarly, many sports events would be enhanced by just letting us watch the action. Virgo is the worst offender as he will not STFU and let us just watch, but he's far from alone.
Though the continued popularity of radio for sports events suggests the opposite. There is a big audience for commentary alone, with no watching of the action.
At its worst punditry on sports programmes (and election nights) is just space filling, but it can be very insightful. Troy Deeney is no angel, but he does very good match analysis and explains tactical decisions insightful.
The pleasure of sport is like many things in life best thought of in three parts:
1) the pleasure of anticipation 2) the actual event 3) the reminiscing and analysing of it afterwards.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Morning all! A satisfying amount of snow fell last night, adding lovely fluffy stuff onto the frozen crunchy layer. With the same forecast again tonight! Happily no plans to go anywhere this weekend...
I doubt it will stop our niece having her daily dip in the sea at Lossiemouth
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?
Lineker doesn’t deny he is a tax avoider (which is of course legal; evasion is the illegal stuff). His argument is that he is ONLY a tax avoider and hasn’t crossed any line
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
Come off it, the BBC has a long history of kowtowing to politicians, and royalty, look at why Tony Blackburn was removed from his radio 1 slot for example.
I suspect with Alliss he just didn’t have the profile to be a concern or to make much of a media storm.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Given at one point literally 50% of the Scottish electorate was voting SNP, that is a slightly surprising claim.
And however we cut it, and however extraordinary her comments Forbes did rather get to the nub of the matter with Yousaf - he's a serial incompetent and failure. Difficult to imagine that he will somehow blossom in higher office and his crashing there would not be to the SNP's advantage.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?
The Royal Funeral stream with just the events - no commentary - was about 1,000 times better than with some idiot droning on repetitively.
Similarly, many sports events would be enhanced by just letting us watch the action. Virgo is the worst offender as he will not STFU and let us just watch, but he's far from alone.
Though the continued popularity of radio for sports events suggests the opposite. There is a big audience for commentary alone, with no watching of the action.
At its worst punditry on sports programmes (and election nights) is just space filling, but it can be very insightful. Troy Deeney is no angel, but he does very good match analysis and explains tactical decisions insightful.
The pleasure of sport is like many things in life best thought of in three parts:
1) the pleasure of anticipation 2) the actual event 3) the reminiscing and analysing of it afterwards.
Punditry is all about parts 1 and 3.
Troy Deeney has put his past behind him, turned his life around, and is trying to do some good to help disadvantaged communities.
He was no angel in the past. He’s put that behind him. Judge him on the person he is not the person he was.
Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.
Aberdeenshire Central Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.
Perhaps, at the margins.
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Given at one point literally 50% of the Scottish electorate was voting SNP, that is a slightly surprising claim.
And however we cut it, and however extraordinary her comments Forbes did rather get to the nub of the matter with Yousaf - he's a serial incompetent and failure. Difficult to imagine that he will somehow blossom in higher office and his crashing there would not be to the SNP's advantage.
I would say Yousaf and Forbes are flawed in different ways. Nevertheless that's the choice if we assume Regan won't go anywhere.
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
Tories want to live in a bubble, in which they can feel ok about dehumanising people and don’t have to worry about a government playing fast and loose with the law.
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
How long before someone suggests they prove once and for all they are not aping Germany in the 30s by burning copies of Lineker's biography in the plaza outside Broadcasting House...
EDIT Also echoes the comment by Hugo Rifkind yesterday. This is what happens when you give a 6 year old everything they demand. They may be delighted for a minute, but there will be tears before bedtime
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would
be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of salt? Why should the views of only football fans matter?
Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.
Aberdeenshire Central Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.
Perhaps, at the margins.
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
Don't even call themselves the D. Ross Say No to Letting the Scots Decide Party. He's missing a trick from his predecessor there.
Has this been discussed? (Sorry, slept in this morning.)
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Labour large majority a good bet if they do well in Scotland
Labour could "double win" in Scotland: if they are on level pegging with the SNP at the General Election, one would expect them to benefit from anti-SNP tactical voting (as the LibDems in particular also do).
Taking this R&W poll, and assuming it manifests itself as the SNP dropping 10% in 2024 in every constituency, with that 10% lumped onto whoever is in second place.
You know what happens?
SNPageddon.
Of the 57 seats in Scotland, the SNP would win only 9 (!) The Labour Party ends up on 32, with the Conservatives managing 10 and LDs 6.
Now, I suspect it won't be quite so severe. But even a situation where the SNP loses 5 points and the second placed party picks them up, then you still see the Labour Party gaining 15 or so seats.
“Could”, “if”, “ taking this R&W poll”, “assuming”, juggling, squinting, fantasising, dreaming, hoping, then telling myself a few porkies… then… yes then, the Yoonyun is saved!! Hallelujah!
Unionists really are a bit weird. Instead of working to make the Union less unpopular, they prefer to comfort themselves with entire fantasy worlds that only exist inside their own heads. Long may that continue!
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of salt? Why should the views of only football fans matter?
On a football show? Because we watch football shows and derive value for money pleasure from our license fee as a result.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
TBF to Mr Lineker the tax issue is, as I understand it, the BBC's own fault.
No one from army of senior BBC managers available to defend the Lineker decision on the Today programme..They hide away..unable to cope when their meek, naive inepitude becomes the story. They’re the problem for the BBC..not Lineker or some of the other presenters they’ve lost.
Because we know who these senior managers are. We know for a fact that this decision would have had to be at the very least communicated up to the top as it was obviously going to create an utter shit storm.
So which BBC managers would have had to come on and defend why they look the politically biased Likeker off the air? The Tory plants who are politically biased!
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
That's football. The Premier League is full of players on that much for a few months, some of which never get their arse off the bench.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Not only have the right made cancel culture their own, they’re now engaging in the politics of envy.
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?
Mrs Thatcher said “every prime minister needs a Willie“. We’re all snigger over it, but we all know that what she meant was that they needed a candid friend . And there doesn’t seem to be one!
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Forbes is the only one with a decent economic brain - it seems to me - who might actually govern Scotland well, and that really is the only route to eventual independence. A continued period of good governance of a prosperous Scotland giving voters the confidence to take the plunge
The previous method of endless Anglophobic grievance has run its course. Sturgeon took it as far as she could - and failed. That’s why she’s gone
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?
Lineker doesn’t deny he is a tax avoider (which is of course legal; evasion is the illegal stuff). His argument is that he is ONLY a tax avoider and hasn’t crossed any line
HMRC apparently disagrees
Yes we know that. Its just that as a freelancer who isn't employed by his primary media outlet yourself, its a bit holier than thou attacking a freelancer who isn't employed by his primary media outlet. Especially when said primary media outlet is the one setting the contract terms.
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Not only have the right made cancel culture their own, they’re now engaging in the politics of envy.
Except where it applies to Tory politicians and their friends. ON which the right instantly decry the politics of envy. For some reason the acronym PPE springs to mind.
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?
If you've been waiting 20 years for PB to post some of the original musicians playing the Match of the Day and Grandatand theme tunes, your day has come, and here are some of the original musicians playing. Grandstand and Match of the Day actually come from the golden '70s era of this sort of thing, when Britain and Italy produced the best theme music.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Sure. But how does that relate to the current issue? The current controversy has nothing to do with his financial affairs.
Also, the BBC is not his only gig. For example, he was on BT’s CL coverage until (I think) last season so his assessment was not simply down to income from the BBC.
In any event, trying to move the discussion away from the attempted censorship of the BBC onto what it pays its presenters just goes to show that you Rightists can’t argue the point. If Lineker wrote a cheque for £4.9m to HMRC tomorrow that issue remains.
Pundits add contrived viewpoints to add extra excitement. One logical question would be why the penalty area is made especially slippery. Ex-professionals will often say "He was touched, he was allowed to go down." What they should be challenged on is meaning ... "He was brushed lightly so he automatically can go over and be 'professional'."
Women's professional football is improving, but often they'd make silly mistakes. The commentators of both sexes would make excuses. A slippery ball, a windy pitch, instead of the mildest of rebukes, such as "He'll be disappointed with that."
The funniest of all is an opposing manager. A dubious tackle? One manager ... An obvious penalty, and a red card too. The other manager ... Nothing to see, it ruined the game.
MOTD is worst, because everything is compressed, and needs a focal point, even an artifical one.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
As said upthread a swing of SNP to SLab could see a lot of seats revert to their pre 2015 norm with SLab dominating. It would make Starmers job a lot easier.
As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
Get used to it. The SNP are spent. 8 yrs of Nicola Surgeon is enough to drive anyone to vote anything but SNP.
They'll win the next GE in Scotland at a canter. Watch.
Exactly , there are some really thick people on here who should learn not to post their ignorance re Scotland publicly.
No one from army of senior BBC managers available to defend the Lineker decision on the Today programme..They hide away..unable to cope when their meek, naive inepitude becomes the story. They’re the problem for the BBC..not Lineker or some of the other presenters they’ve lost.
You'd soon be whining if presenters were making pro brext statements. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy about this from both sides of the spectrum.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
TBF to Mr Lineker the tax issue is, as I understand it, the BBC's own fault.
Comments
His enthusiasm was genuine, and even his gaffes were endearingly amusing. He didn't take himself too seriously, as evidenced by the time he did a commentary for Wacky Races. He also did a warm and revealing Desert Island discs.
I think he was a good commentator, albeit in a unique and personal style.
In a world where multiple streams are easy to do, it's surprising that "just the sport, no witty banter" streams are so rare. If they were popular, you'd expect someone entrepreneurial to offer them.
It’s arguably better than the tv series. Moving, profound, brilliantly detailed. Eloquent
It also shows the utter futility and ugliness of trying to invade and pacify a country with no desire to be pacified. Or invaded
Russia has earned itself a decade of pain
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
The anomaly is notable, and is noted.
Other than evidently driving you to distraction, no harm done.
Of course we'll have to see what other polls show before the explanation for the anomaly, and the state of Scottish opinion becomes clear.
The all time great was Bill McClaren, of course.
Key message is less convenience food (8)
You are undoubtedly a fraud. PB hereby removes you licence to practice medicine.
Murray Walker was also a very nice chap, according to my son who knew him at Formula One.
Didn’t this get you banned at one point? Tsk
In my fever, pale and compromised state, I became fixated on him. “It’s Murray Walker, I’m sure” I thought. I must have been staring him out and looked even more dodgy than usual. He got up and left for the next carriage.
Mr. Romford, to be fair, businesses can make bad decisions that seem inexplicable. Ratner, or, more recently, the MCU and Star Wars diluting their brands by subpar films and excessive content at the expense of quality.
Going back a bit, but Star Wars junking the expanded universe when it was bought by Disney was just nuts. A film series based on Zahn's Thrawn trilogy would've been a slam dunk box office success.
You couldn't make this woman up!
If I’d just ignored the header some other insult would have been rolled out. PB eye-swivelling at its best.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Looking at two data points is enough to spark interest in looking further, but I personally wouldn't be publishing on that scanty basis myself.
You'd almost be better off aggregating subsamples.
Most banks make money by taking deposits (borrowing short) and lending long - this is the interest spread and is effectively a play on duration. When interest rates go up they are protected because most loans are priced as a spread to the Fed interbank rate.
SVB’s clients have been very cashed up because of the tech boom. And they had limited lending opportunities (many companies are unprofitable). So they took the surplus and invested in long dated government bond. The issue is that when interest rates go up the price of bonds falls.
With the funding market being closed for the last year SVB had to sell bonds as companies weee continuing to spend their cash. It was taking a loss - which panicked some of the VCs and triggered a classic run on the bank
More seriously, that was Keith Mansfield and Alan Hawkshaw, I think, who were responsible for much more surprisingly hip and still fashionable material such as this, to add to today's surreality, played here in the British library a couple of years back :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYR8zOhSmmo
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
But just go back and read through your posts if you think that was a straw man, or that I'm the one swivelling eyes.
Can you explain the nature of your concern?
Remarkable how the Nationalists have got the non-aligned of Northern Ireland to back their agenda.
The DUP made some very bad strategic choices on Brexit and throwing their lot in with the English nationalist tendency in the Conservative Party.
EXCLUSIVE:
@LucidTalk
poll for
@BelTel
on how NI would vote in a referendum on the protocol deal:
🔷 67% of people - Yes
🔷 73% of DUP voters - No
🔷 56% UUP voters - Yes
🔷98% of Alliance/Green voters, 97% of nationalists & 38% of unionists - Yes
https://mobile.twitter.com/SuzyJourno/status/1634321027265175552
A bit more effort is required on the part of people throwing such insinuations around.
It's a poor show in my view.
Brings to mind this scene in Emma.
And I know you're hardly a Scottish expert, but Scotland's had issues with their access legislation:
https://news.sky.com/story/overnight-parking-ban-in-east-lothian-coastal-car-parks-to-curb-anti-social-visitors-12789507
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/scotland/407421/loch-lomond-wild-camping-restrictions-slippery-slope-scotlands-walkers/
+more.
Surely, they can do without ex-footballers? A reasonable manager such as Klopp would be much better. At least, they'd have real insights.
I haven't watched for a while, but I'll tune in tonight.
Similarly, many sports events would be enhanced by just letting us watch the action. Virgo is the worst offender as he will not STFU and let us just watch, but he's far from alone.
(2) They actually ruled the exact opposite - that the Scots are *not* colonial subjects.
I'm starting to wonder if putting you and Suella Braverman in a room together would lead to a moment like the ending of Animal Farm.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
No one from army of senior BBC managers available to defend the Lineker decision on the Today programme..They hide away..unable to cope when their meek, naive inepitude becomes the story. They’re the problem for the BBC..not Lineker or some of the other presenters they’ve lost.
I suspect the desire for the raw empty feed, is for the armchair pundit to fill the silence.
If we're talking about Famous Commentators My Folks Knew, my grandfather actually knew Peter Alliss quite well. He used to live near (and was a member of) Parkstone Golf Club when Alliss was the pro there.
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
Lineker gets support from Fatboy Slim
https://twitter.com/fatboyslim/status/1634335584838713349?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
They don't even agree on independence!
Would have been funnier if there was on article on Johnson next to it...
At its worst punditry on sports programmes (and election nights) is just space filling, but it can be very insightful. Troy Deeney is no angel, but he does very good match analysis and explains tactical decisions insightful.
The pleasure of sport is like many things in life best thought of in three parts:
1) the pleasure of anticipation
2) the actual event
3) the reminiscing and analysing of it afterwards.
Punditry is all about parts 1 and 3.
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1634175751435038721
HMRC apparently disagrees
I suspect with Alliss he just didn’t have the profile to be a concern or to make much of a media storm.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
And however we cut it, and however extraordinary her comments Forbes did rather get to the nub of the matter with Yousaf - he's a serial incompetent and failure. Difficult to imagine that he will somehow blossom in higher office and his crashing there would not be to the SNP's advantage.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
He was no angel in the past. He’s put that behind him. Judge him on the person he is not the person he was.
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
EDIT Also echoes the comment by Hugo Rifkind yesterday. This is what happens when you give a 6 year old everything they demand. They may be delighted for a minute, but there will be tears before bedtime
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Has this been discussed? (Sorry, slept in this morning.)
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23379071.scottish-independence-support-lead-latest-poll/?ref=ebbn
Then you look at who the world feed is. I'm not sure there will be a feed for the BBC to take.
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
So which BBC managers would have had to come on and defend why they look the politically biased Likeker off the air? The Tory plants who are politically biased!
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
And there doesn’t seem to be one!
The previous method of endless Anglophobic grievance has run its course. Sturgeon took it as far as she could - and failed. That’s why she’s gone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaHSZ5wPSGw
Also, the BBC is not his only gig. For example, he was on BT’s CL coverage until (I think) last season so his assessment was not simply down to income from the BBC.
In any event, trying to move the discussion away from the attempted censorship of the BBC onto what it pays its presenters just goes to show that you Rightists can’t argue the point. If Lineker wrote a cheque for £4.9m to HMRC tomorrow that issue remains.
Women's professional football is improving, but often they'd make silly mistakes. The commentators of both sexes would make excuses. A slippery ball, a windy pitch, instead of the mildest of rebukes, such as "He'll be disappointed with that."
The funniest of all is an opposing manager. A dubious tackle? One manager ... An obvious penalty, and a red card too. The other manager ... Nothing to see, it ruined the game.
MOTD is worst, because everything is compressed, and needs a focal point, even an artifical one.
Offence us the attack You'd soon be whining if presenters were making pro brext statements. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy about this from both sides of the spectrum.