Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A hollow victory for the hollow crown? – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,553
    This caller reads Bravermans speech from Hansard replacing migrant with jew. Listen and tell me Braverman wasn't using 1930s Germany language.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TheVojem/status/1634312033595211778/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1634312033595211778&currentTweetUser=TheVojem
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,738

    HYUFD said:

    Clear lead for “Don’t know”….




    Or Forbes, despite the fact the vast majority of SNP MPs and MPs have endorsed Yousaf
    This could get really awkward:

    SNP Leadership Election Endorsements, state of play at 11pm on 11th of March. 3 candidates, 106 endorsements available.

    Candidate: Backers (MSPs/MPs)

    Yousaf: 50 (32/18)
    Forbes: 14 (11/3)
    Regan: 1 (0/1)
    None Yet: 37 (14/23)
    None: 4 (4/0)

    https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/snp-leadership-election-2023

    …Yousaf now has the backing of a majority of the possible MSPs; 32 of 61, which is 33 of 64 inclusive of the leadership candidates.


    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1634692615785332736?s=20

    Interesting that MPs are being slower with their endorsements than MSPs.
    The Holyrood laundry must be getting overloaded with SNP staffers’ and MSPs’ underpants.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    FF43 said:

    French and UK interests aren't aligned on cross Channel migration. France doesn't want migrants turning up in Calais on their way to the UK, but if they do come France is happy for them to be the UK's problem and not stay around.

    The original Le Touquet deal was for extra policing in exchange for the UK accepting a proportion of asylum cases from France but it never really happened. On the other hand Macron unlike some other French politicians wants to keep the arrangement going. Maybe the money helps.

    Worth noting that the Rwanda deal not only included money for Rwanda, but also for Rwanda to send us some of their refugees in equivalent numbers to those deported from UK.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,255
    The licence fee needs to go. Then the metrosequal luvvies ycan say what they like. If I am not paying for it they can say what they like.
    Once the license fee has gone Lineker won't be being paid as much as revenue
    will probably drop loads and hopefully he will fuck off to America.. permanently.
  • I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour
  • This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,505

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I am gutted to have missed another Saturday night drunken bloodbath on pb.com. We normally dine en famille on a Saturday but I might have to put a stop to it so I can watch these drink soaked contretemps unwind in real time.

    Me too. Are you able to provide a resume of the casualties?
    One thing that will please DA was HYUFD trying to prove the massive popularity of naming a Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland by adducing polling that showed royalism collapsing in Scotland. Astonishing figures - desire for royalty is plainly a minority pursuit.
    Let the British Establishment get on with it. They have zero “feel” for Scottish society and thus make elementary, unforced errors again and again.

    “Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
    It's quite sweet of them to try, and it will make some old dears and Toryboys and Orange Lodges happy.

    But the stuff in the Times (was it?) about the RF getting it all muddled up with their vision of Scottish politics was absolutely incredible. Not leastr because the RF is supposed not to interfere in politics.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Clear lead for “Don’t know”….




    I would imagine that DK largely - but not exclusively - corresponds to Unionist voters.

    For example it’s notable that when pollsters ask respondents who would make the best PM, Sunak or Starmer, the DK figure is always higher in Scotland. A large percentage obviously want to say “Neither” but are not presented with that option.
    There is a view among some SNP supporters that Forbes support is “coming from Unionists because she doesn’t want independence”. Meanwhile, Mr Kelly, late of this parish has been doing some polling:

    Regardless of which party or parties you intend to vote for in future elections, which of the three candidates do you think would be the best First Minister of Scotland? (Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase, 7th-10th March 2023)

    Kate Forbes: 33% (+10)
    Humza Yousaf: 18% (+3)
    Ash Regan: 10% (+3)
    Don't Know: 36% (-13)


    If the remaining Don't Knows are stripped out, this is how the state of play looks -

    Kate Forbes: 53% (+5)
    Humza Yousaf: 30% (-)
    Ash Regan: 17% (+3)


    https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2023/03/exclusive-scot-goes-pop-panelbase-poll.html?m=1
    Looks about right.

    Funnily enough, I think that is the order I’ll be voting myself:

    1. Forbes
    2. Yousaf
    3. Regan

    (I changed my mind about Regan 2 when she made the gob-smacking decision to hop into bed with the Bonkers Bath Bad-un.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 24,652
    pigeon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting that Leavers and Tories are the two groups with the largest numbers 'strongly opposed' to the bung.

    I'm not sure how much it means, though. Far more significant to the popularity of the policy will be the numbers crossing this year.

    I think that's right. If the boats stop (or, more realistically, the numbers are cut back to something a bit more manageable) then the salience of the story will decline and so will the grumbling about the cost of subsidising French law enforcement.

    It's worth remembering once again that support for the concept of asylum in theory amongst the electorate is high (hence the fact that there is little if any grumbling about letting in lots of Ukrainians and Hongkongers,) but support for the boat people in practice is not, and for good reason. The overwhelming majority of them are young men, most of those are demonstrably economic migrants (starting with the whole of the 42% of all the boat people whom, according to the most recent available figures, were Albanian,) and they're a security risk.
    Quite. The position of those objecting (morally) is nothing like Trump's wall - it is the expectation that the French will enforce their own maritime law without requiring bribery. They seem quite prepared to enforce the most piddling of laws at the border when it suits them, but clearly not to detain people for putting to sea in unseaworthy boats, with no passenger manifests, no documentation, no licenses to operate ferries, no payment of French taxes etc.

    In the longer term, this bung to the French (on top of the other, completely inneffective bung we'd already given them afaicr) also opens us up to effective blackmail should a British PM ever decide that paying France to enforce its own laws is a poor use of taxpayers' money.

    But the bottom line is that we can't get the French to sort this for us - we need to eliminate the pull factors.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,255

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!
    How many people will ditch the license fee if that happens..
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,467
    edited March 2023

    Morning all.

    It's indeed true that Birt had experience of TV, like Greg Dyke. But the crtical fact is that he signed over , almost, the entire restructurng of the BBC to an outside body, in the shape of McKinsey's.

    Nothing like that's happened to the BBC before, or since.

    Davie is simply a continuation of this more commercial ethos, nothing new or particularly different, or necessarily that much more incompetent on the creative front than Dyke, who wasn't terrible. But he's shown poor judgement over this row and affair.

    Davie is different - there is an explicit political aim which wasn't there before. After all, if you are a party where all you have left in the talk is culture wars and attempt 13 to sink the migrants, you can't be left exposed to the impartial national broadcaster holding up a mirror showing that you aren't speaking for most of the country.

    Owning GBeebies and Talk TV and the Daily Mail isn't enough - you need to shut down sanity and reason hence appointing stooges to run the BBC. Where it has gone so spectacularly wrong is that the Tory stooges had to suspect Lineker because he wasn't impartial. Too big a leap even for people in this post-truth world...
    That is true. There is that explicit element of Tory support, and possible patronage , in his background, too, like sharp. Then there's also Robbie Gibb and others, et al.

    It's still amazing that someone like Alasdair Milne, could have been appointed under the Tories, in 1982, the year also of the birth of Channel 4.

    That was a fascinating blip and showed the kind of government the Tory Wets could have been, but also kept the BBC creatively focused until Birt and Checkland had changed things by the mid-nineties.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,765

    Labour supporting Matthew Syed comes out in favour of what Rishi is trying to do here, saying the treaties should be rewritten across the West and, indeed, arguing there should be an absolute cap on numbers - and critical of liberal-thinking on the issue. He thinks this would legitimately allow a higher number to be admitted. He does think language and tone is important too:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/our-asylum-system-has-been-rigged-for-decades-its-time-for-real-action-r3vtk3ggq

    It’s an interesting article with something for everyone.

    There may be some of the pearl clutching liberals calling for open borders he talks about, but they have no power and no means of securing power. So the juxtaposition he creates doesn’t actually exist in the real world.

    The real world issue is will the government’s plan work? The answer is almost certainly no. What may work, as Matthew says, is detailed, sustained international cooperation. The one thing that is pretty much guaranteed not to get that is what the Tory right, including Suella Braverman, has made very clear it wants - the UK pulling out of the ECHR and/or the UNHCR. So Sunak will have a very important choice to make in a few months time when the small boats keep coming.

    And, yes, as Syed says, language matters a lot. If you want a national consensus rather than dividing lines you don’t use words like invasion and accuse those who don’t agree with you of betraying Britain.
    The Tories simply came up with something they were confident Labour would oppose, so that they could use this as a political stick. Whether it worked or not didn’t really matter. The real significance of the Lineker intervention is that the ensuring furore may be reframing the debate.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,505
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I am gutted to have missed another Saturday night drunken bloodbath on pb.com. We normally dine en famille on a Saturday but I might have to put a stop to it so I can watch these drink soaked contretemps unwind in real time.

    Me too. Are you able to provide a resume of the casualties?
    One thing that will please DA was HYUFD trying to prove the massive popularity of naming a Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland by adducing polling that showed royalism collapsing in Scotland. Astonishing figures - desire for royalty is plainly a minority pursuit.
    Let the British Establishment get on with it. They have zero “feel” for Scottish society and thus make elementary, unforced errors again and again.

    “Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
    Never had you down as such an arch-royalist that you consider the Duke of Edinburgh your God, but I suppose you do live in Sweden.
    Depends which incarnation, though. That can definitely be a point of dispute in Tibetan Buddhism, I understand.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,552

    I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour

    Would Lineker have been banned if he'd tweeted support for the government's immigration proposals?

    That's the killer question.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,813
    edited March 2023
    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, earlier than usual as the nation prepares for a day of doggie-excitement…

    Tories are having a debate among themselves about whether they can somehow contrive to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat or are doomed to be chewed up and spat out by angry voters whenever the next election comes.

    Senior Labour people are not arguing about whether we are reliving the run-up to ’97. That’s because none of them think they have a chance of replicating the 179-seat majority won by Tony Blair. Thanks to the dismal legacy of the last election, its worst result since 1935, Labour has a vast mountain to scale. It probably requires a swing of 12% to get over the line – a bigger shift than the 10% achieved by Mr Blair. Everyone of significance in today’s Labour hierarchy is haunted by the spectre of ’92.

    There’s sense to having a direction-setting framework for a 10-year plan of renewal, but Labour MPs don’t pretend that “mission-driven government” cuts through with many voters. By the time of the election, they will need a fistful of crisp and credible offers that they can sell on doorsteps and in TV studios. It is not hard to find members of Labour’s high command who use the word “soft” to describe their party’s support. “The deal isn’t clinched,” says one of their number. “Not anywhere near clinched.”

    The next election will not be an exact rerun of ’97 nor a rehash of ’92. History rarely repeats itself so neatly. But there are enduring lessons from both. Labour fails when its opponents have an opening to depict the party as unsafe with office. Labour succeeds when it has persuaded the country that it can be trusted with government and that it has compelling ideas to use power to make Britain a better country. Not one or the other, but both



    Rawnsley spot-on with this. There is no love for Labour on the doorsteps, just a WTF??? at the Government.

    He rightly identifies the mountain Labour has to climb. Where he doesn't go far enough is what Labour faces when the polls turn slightly worse by the next election. When the narrative becomes "Labour cannot govern alone". The story then shifts to "Do voters really want a ramshackle rainbow coalition to replace a (by then) steady looking PM in Rishi Sunak?".

    Get ready for that 92 exit poll redux, Labour.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,190
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I am gutted to have missed another Saturday night drunken bloodbath on pb.com. We normally dine en famille on a Saturday but I might have to put a stop to it so I can watch these drink soaked contretemps unwind in real time.

    Me too. Are you able to provide a resume of the casualties?
    One thing that will please DA was HYUFD trying to prove the massive popularity of naming a Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland by adducing polling that showed royalism collapsing in Scotland. Astonishing figures - desire for royalty is plainly a minority pursuit.
    Let the British Establishment get on with it. They have zero “feel” for Scottish society and thus make elementary, unforced errors again and again.

    “Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
    Never had you down as such an arch-royalist that you consider the Duke of Edinburgh your God, but I suppose you do live in Sweden.
    Depends which incarnation, though. That can definitely be a point of dispute in Tibetan Buddhism, I understand.
    That post is slightly a lama-ing.
  • Taz said:

    Morning all! So it seems clear now that (a) Lineker will be reinstated and (b) Tory stooges imposed on the BBC will be resigning.

    Which means we are going to be opened up to an awful lot of coverage about just how - and why - the Conservative Party is so desperate to corrupt the BBC. And what kind of threat a tweeting sports presenter really would have been to a policy which as claimed was robust and popular.

    As soon as Sunak said "he's great isn't he? Nothing to do with the government" it was clear the Tories had conceded and were in retreat. What a fiasco.

    Whether the policy is robust or not remains to be seen but polling numbers do show it to have support.

    Political interference in the BBC. Would never have happened in the halcyon days of non political appointees John Birt and Gavyn Davies.

    Birt’s impact on the BBC was far more malign than any Tory.
    If the policy is robust, why the need to make such a hash of it?

    Anyway, we know the problem with the illegal Illegal Migration Bill is precisely because some people very strongly support it - they want asylum seeking to stop. As the bill canst deliver on any of its aims this does rather prevent the government with a problem.

    No wonder they wanted a clear run at a few good days of headlines, because that's the only benefit this will give. And they blew that.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,800
    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    Totally agree - and it's not just the 300 start-ups, it's the infrastructure that is built around them. Hunt has no choice. He has to do it.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,553

    I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour

    Muppet.

    The equivalence is what he tweeted about Corbyn was 1000 times worse photoshopping him with Hitler and the fact that nothing was done about it in terms of having to be neutral.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,124

    Morning all! So it seems clear now that (a) Lineker will be reinstated and (b) Tory stooges imposed on the BBC will be resigning.

    Which means we are going to be opened up to an awful lot of coverage about just how - and why - the Conservative Party is so desperate to corrupt the BBC. And what kind of threat a tweeting sports presenter really would have been to a policy which as claimed was robust and popular.

    As soon as Sunak said "he's great isn't he? Nothing to do with the government" it was clear the Tories had conceded and were in retreat. What a fiasco.

    Yes, what a fiasco. Nonetheless surely the BBC and the Government have to double down on Lineker's removal. If they don't any old Tom, Dick or Gary can slag off HMG and it's for the benefit of the Conservative Party policy announcements.

    Surely anyone who fell four square behind Lineker has breached their contract and the BBC/HMG are perfectly entitled to pack them out of the door behind Lineker.

    So what of the future? Fiona Bruce and Frank Lampard to host MoTD and Lineker to stand as a Labour candidate in Uxbridge
  • I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour

    Would Lineker have been banned if he'd tweeted support for the government's immigration proposals?

    That's the killer question.
    Would the BBC have hired a political operator to host their most high profile show (and if it's not their most high profile show, wtf are they doing spunking a million and a half a year on its presenter?)?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,552

    Taz said:

    Morning all! So it seems clear now that (a) Lineker will be reinstated and (b) Tory stooges imposed on the BBC will be resigning.

    Which means we are going to be opened up to an awful lot of coverage about just how - and why - the Conservative Party is so desperate to corrupt the BBC. And what kind of threat a tweeting sports presenter really would have been to a policy which as claimed was robust and popular.

    As soon as Sunak said "he's great isn't he? Nothing to do with the government" it was clear the Tories had conceded and were in retreat. What a fiasco.

    Whether the policy is robust or not remains to be seen but polling numbers do show it to have support.

    Political interference in the BBC. Would never have happened in the halcyon days of non political appointees John Birt and Gavyn Davies.

    Birt’s impact on the BBC was far more malign than any Tory.
    If the policy is robust, why the need to make such a hash of it?

    Anyway, we know the problem with the illegal Illegal Migration Bill is precisely because some people very strongly support it - they want asylum seeking to stop. As the bill canst deliver on any of its aims this does rather prevent the government with a problem.

    No wonder they wanted a clear run at a few good days of headlines, because that's the only benefit this will give. And they blew that.
    '...prevent the government with a problem' is a good typo.

    This government seems to be unable to govern in the face of any and every problem.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,238
    edited March 2023

    Lineker’s policy of spreading hatred of the government uses immeasurable hyperbole and weasel words not dissimilar to those employed by usurpers looking to foment rebellion against democratically elected governments through the ages

    ChatGPT ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    CD13 said:

    Fans support their teams, not the pundits. They may not be as popular as they suspect. See how quickly they turn on managers. I'm no fan of the BBC. They cost us £160 a year and advertise more than any other channel - even if they are incessant adverts for their own products.

    A group of rich non-taxpayers who have a high opinion of themselves aren't natural sympathy-gatherers. One thing the BBC has managed is to avoid too much obvious bias despite their natural lefty tendencies. If Lineker forces this to be different, why are we paying for them?

    Presumably you didn't see the polling on this yesterday. Brits support Lineker, think the BBC wrong to suspend him, and think it right for other pundits to show solidarity. All by clear margins:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1634663719660601344?t=7tDR74A76lLSQaOPRQoOsA&s=19
  • rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,553

    I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour

    Would Lineker have been banned if he'd tweeted support for the government's immigration proposals?

    That's the killer question.
    It is and we'll done the BBC reporter who asked it of the DG yesterday.

    I suspect Blanche won't be going into hypotheticals.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,552

    I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour

    Would Lineker have been banned if he'd tweeted support for the government's immigration proposals?

    That's the killer question.
    Would the BBC have hired a political operator to host their most high profile show (and if it's not their most high profile show, wtf are they doing spunking a million and a half a year on its presenter?)?
    Whataboutery of the highest order. Why not answer my question?

    The answer to yours is No, they wouldn't, they didn't.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,691

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!
    How many people will ditch the license fee if that happens..
    Some, and we will no doubt hear a lot from a lot of them.

    But remember the age cleavage in politics. A lot of right-minded people get freebies and many others will still want proper telly. Relying on streaming is a game for young people, comfortable with technology.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,505

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,505
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I am gutted to have missed another Saturday night drunken bloodbath on pb.com. We normally dine en famille on a Saturday but I might have to put a stop to it so I can watch these drink soaked contretemps unwind in real time.

    Me too. Are you able to provide a resume of the casualties?
    One thing that will please DA was HYUFD trying to prove the massive popularity of naming a Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland by adducing polling that showed royalism collapsing in Scotland. Astonishing figures - desire for royalty is plainly a minority pursuit.
    Let the British Establishment get on with it. They have zero “feel” for Scottish society and thus make elementary, unforced errors again and again.

    “Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
    Never had you down as such an arch-royalist that you consider the Duke of Edinburgh your God, but I suppose you do live in Sweden.
    Depends which incarnation, though. That can definitely be a point of dispute in Tibetan Buddhism, I understand.
    That post is slightly a lama-ing.
    I did wonder which incarnation you expected SD to endorje.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,552

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
  • This caller reads Bravermans speech from Hansard replacing migrant with jew. Listen and tell me Braverman wasn't using 1930s Germany language.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TheVojem/status/1634312033595211778/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1634312033595211778&currentTweetUser=TheVojem

    How outrageous. You can't show that Braverman is directly copying the Nazi forms of propaganda just because she obviously is. The *only* nazi comparison allowable is the Holocaust, absolutely nothing happened before that and it's simply beastly to compare the Tory demonisation of migrants and Goebbels demonisation of Jews just because the language structures are the same...
  • Taz said:

    Lineker’s policy of spreading hatred of the government uses immeasurable hyperbole and weasel words not dissimilar to those employed by usurpers looking to foment rebellion against democratically elected governments through the ages

    ChatGPT ?
    Lineker is using WeaselGPT

    "Not dissimilar to language used in Germany in the 30s"

    is weasel for

    "Similar to Nazi propaganda"
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,813

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!
    How many people will ditch the license fee if that happens..
    "The Lineker Fee is Not For Me!"
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,505

    Taz said:

    Lineker’s policy of spreading hatred of the government uses immeasurable hyperbole and weasel words not dissimilar to those employed by usurpers looking to foment rebellion against democratically elected governments through the ages

    ChatGPT ?
    Lineker is using WeaselGPT

    "Not dissimilar to language used in Germany in the 30s"

    is weasel for

    "Similar to Nazi propaganda"
    Given that 1930-33 includes the critical final years of Weimar and the elections that put paid to it, that wouldn't stand up for a moment in a law court.
  • The licence fee needs to go. Then the metrosequal luvvies ycan say what they like. If I am not paying for it they can say what they like.
    Once the license fee has gone Lineker won't be being paid as much as revenue
    will probably drop loads and hopefully he will fuck off to America.. permanently.

    I agree with you that the license fee should go - it is archaic. Difference is that I say that whilst supporting the Lineker view. I'm not saying it in a strop because someone said something I disagree with.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,361
    edited March 2023
    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, earlier than usual as the nation prepares for a day of doggie-excitement…

    Tories are having a debate among themselves about whether they can somehow contrive to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat or are doomed to be chewed up and spat out by angry voters whenever the next election comes.

    Senior Labour people are not arguing about whether we are reliving the run-up to ’97. That’s because none of them think they have a chance of replicating the 179-seat majority won by Tony Blair. Thanks to the dismal legacy of the last election, its worst result since 1935, Labour has a vast mountain to scale. It probably requires a swing of 12% to get over the line – a bigger shift than the 10% achieved by Mr Blair. Everyone of significance in today’s Labour hierarchy is haunted by the spectre of ’92.

    There’s sense to having a direction-setting framework for a 10-year plan of renewal, but Labour MPs don’t pretend that “mission-driven government” cuts through with many voters. By the time of the election, they will need a fistful of crisp and credible offers that they can sell on doorsteps and in TV studios. It is not hard to find members of Labour’s high command who use the word “soft” to describe their party’s support. “The deal isn’t clinched,” says one of their number. “Not anywhere near clinched.”

    The next election will not be an exact rerun of ’97 nor a rehash of ’92. History rarely repeats itself so neatly. But there are enduring lessons from both. Labour fails when its opponents have an opening to depict the party as unsafe with office. Labour succeeds when it has persuaded the country that it can be trusted with government and that it has compelling ideas to use power to make Britain a better country. Not one or the other, but both



    The one challenge I would make here:

    Thanks to the dismal legacy of the last election, its worst result since 1935, Labour has a vast mountain to scale. It probably requires a swing of 12% to get over the line – a bigger shift than the 10% achieved by Mr Blair.

    Our electoral system is entirely zero sum. If you don't like the Conservatives you are boosting Labour and vice versa.

    Labour may not be able to make the numbers add up for a huge majority this time, but what happened in 2019 will be irrelevant to 2024.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,765
    A hotly contested jumping competition in the small category, with five dogs clear and breaking the forty second mark.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,238

    Morning all.

    It's indeed true that Birt had experience of TV, like Greg Dyke. But the crtical fact is that he signed over , almost, the entire restructurng of the BBC to an outside body, in the shape of McKinsey's.

    Nothing like that's happened to the BBC before, or since.

    Davie is simply a continuation of this more commercial ethos, nothing new or particularly different, or necessarily that much more incompetent on the creative front than Dyke, who wasn't terrible. But he's shown poor judgement over this row and affair.

    I didn’t realise until you mentioned it yesterday that under Birt the BBC were still junking treasures like Play for Today and Screen Two.

    Birt was an awful appointment and it took the BBC many years to recover from him.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,552
    IanB2 said:

    A hotly contested jumping competition in the small category, with five dogs clear and breaking the forty second mark.

    Have I missed the Strictly Come Dog Dancing?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,800

    I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour

    Either you believe in BBC presenters being impartial or you don't. It's quite simple really. Why is it OK to attack Mick Lynch, Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan if you are a BBC presenter but not OK to attack the government?

    More widely, why is it wrong to compare government language over asylum seekers to the language used against vulnerable minorities in Germany in the 1930s, but not wrong to compare the EU to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,765
    And a fast run by Classic in the mediums, setting the bar at 38 seconds!
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,296
    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,111

    This caller reads Bravermans speech from Hansard replacing migrant with jew. Listen and tell me Braverman wasn't using 1930s Germany language.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TheVojem/status/1634312033595211778/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1634312033595211778&currentTweetUser=TheVojem

    How outrageous. You can't show that Braverman is directly copying the Nazi forms of propaganda just because she obviously is. The *only* nazi comparison allowable is the Holocaust, absolutely nothing happened before that and it's simply beastly to compare the Tory demonisation of migrants and Goebbels demonisation of Jews just because the language structures are the same...
    At least all these people complaining about Lineker absolutely condemned Boris Johnson when he compared the EU to Hitler.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36295208
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,552
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,190
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I am gutted to have missed another Saturday night drunken bloodbath on pb.com. We normally dine en famille on a Saturday but I might have to put a stop to it so I can watch these drink soaked contretemps unwind in real time.

    Me too. Are you able to provide a resume of the casualties?
    One thing that will please DA was HYUFD trying to prove the massive popularity of naming a Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland by adducing polling that showed royalism collapsing in Scotland. Astonishing figures - desire for royalty is plainly a minority pursuit.
    Let the British Establishment get on with it. They have zero “feel” for Scottish society and thus make elementary, unforced errors again and again.

    “Duke of Edinburgh”? OMFG.
    Never had you down as such an arch-royalist that you consider the Duke of Edinburgh your God, but I suppose you do live in Sweden.
    Depends which incarnation, though. That can definitely be a point of dispute in Tibetan Buddhism, I understand.
    That post is slightly a lama-ing.
    I did wonder which incarnation you expected SD to endorje.
    Well, that's up to him. I just saw an opportunity to get in our Dalai quota of punning.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,238

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!
    How many people will ditch the license fee if that happens..
    More and more people are doing so anyway. Irrespective of this.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,552

    FF43 said:

    French and UK interests aren't aligned on cross Channel migration. France doesn't want migrants turning up in Calais on their way to the UK, but if they do come France is happy for them to be the UK's problem and not stay around.

    The original Le Touquet deal was for extra policing in exchange for the UK accepting a proportion of asylum cases from France but it never really happened. On the other hand Macron unlike some other French politicians wants to keep the arrangement going. Maybe the money helps.

    If you take a step back, they are perfectly aligned: both want fewer refugees in the first place. And that also aligns them with every other European country. And that's why the one thing Sunak has got absolutely right on this is the focus on increased cooperation. This is not something that any country can solve alone. The problem is that there is no quick fix, while a lot of Sunak's MPs and a lot of his voters believe that there is. So, how does Sunak navigate that? Pulling out of the ECHR and/or UNHCR kills any chance of the UK working with other countries facing similar problems stone dead, while causing wider reputational, trade and security challenges on top. These kinds of trade-off cannot be avoided in the real world.

    If only there was an organisation of European countries we could join to work together on this.
  • Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    The Attenborough thing is even funnier. A National Treasure making what's likely his final hugely popular and hugely marketable series. Been manages to not only try and claim they were only making 5 and not 6, but compounds the stupid when "we didn't fund that and can't show that as it's not ours" means it's going on iPlayer.

    So whatever the excuses, the BBC have bought this program. The final one in the probable final series of Sir National Treasure. And won't broadcast it because the Chair and DG are Tory stooges and have to stop people attacking their party policies.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Dr Fox,

    What's your opinion of Brendan at the moment? He's struggling, but he could do worse? Only a guess, but most fans stick with them when things could be worse. Once he's an ex-manager all bets are off. Or is it only me who's so fickle?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,575

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting detail on SVB.
    1) A CEO friend and I stopped by SVB’s Palo Alto office today just in time to see an FDIC employee taping a QR code to the door that led to a FAQ:

    https://fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/silicon-valley

    https://mobile.twitter.com/elatable/status/1634687606540886017

    The $250k of deposit insurance will be available Monday, and it sounds as though assets are being fairly rapidly liquidated.
    Bottom line might be a 30% haircut for depositors.
    They can thank Trump's rollback of banking regulation for that.

    Given SVB was considerably more exposed than any other bank, systemic risk looks quite low.
    The unrealised losses in banks' HTM bonds might mean some big hits to profits in less well capitalised banks which see significant withdrawals (eg US regional banks).

    The oddest detail of the tweet is surely "A CEO friend and I..." as if the CEO friend plays any part in what follows. Hopefully the Fed has acted in time, unlike when they let Lehmans fail 15 years ago. SBV was America's 16th biggest bank, not some mom-and-pop lender, and reputedly was used by many Silicon Valley companies, so there is a risk there to the American tech economy.
    That’s presumably why they are doing the fire sale of a big portion of the assets - to make sure that the tech economy has access to funding. I think @CarlottaVance may have miss understood - it’s not a 30% hit but that you won’t be getting all your money back *today*. I’d imagine they will hold the worse hit to maturity.

    But it does sound like that they are going for a wind down rather than a sale of the business.

    The people who are really stuck are those who took venture debt from SVB. Those loans are tranched based on milestones but companies may well have committed to spending in anticipation - there isn’t any equity around at the moment and venture debt is hard to come by (there was still some available a few weeks ago but not on great terms)

  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,290

    kjh said:

    There is no such thing as free speech. It comes with a heavy price.

    Of course there is such a thing as free speech. There are some limits, the obvious being you shouldn't be allowed to shout fire in the theatre.

    And the most important time to defend free speech is when you don't like what is being said.

    Honestly some people here from the socially conservative right seem to have more in common with the old USSR or Putin's Russia in their views on censorship.
    Thanks Mike.
    ?

    Replied to wrong post? If not I don't understand.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,765
    edited March 2023
    Friday’s singles winner DevDev takes the lead in the mediums…with YouTube live viewer numbers already above half a million.

    Toppy collides with the fence and picks up five faults.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
    I see that the City wants another bailout.

    If the assets are so obviously valuable then let other companies buy them.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,800

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!

    Do you really think any senior BBC management will be going as a result of this? These are Boris Johnson's people. They will not resign. They will have to be fired. How does that happen? Politically, Sunak cannot fire Sharp as it will infuriate the right of his party. And Sharp cannot fire Davie because it would only raise questions about why he isn't going too.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,361

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    On the other hand Crispbag's career with the BBC is now at an end. He can run his MOTD contract through to its end but it will not be renewed nor those of his mates on MOTD. A new format beckons. Time to move on.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,190
    edited March 2023

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
    'The government of Germany in the 1930s' means the Nazis.

    Was it hyperbolic? Arguably.

    Is it understandable? Definitely.

    If the government don't want to be compared to a bunch of racist criminals, then they shouldn't openly commit crimes while acting like a bunch of racists.

    It's really not that hard.

    And that's in any case now secondary to the contractual hole the BBC has now dug itself into with a Magla-mole sized drill, which is rapidly becoming the main story and could engulf the Beeb, enraging their grey vote who watch it all the time.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,552
    edited March 2023

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!
    How many people will ditch the license fee if that happens..
    Some, and we will no doubt hear a lot from a lot of them.

    But remember the age cleavage in politics. A lot of right-minded people get freebies and many others will still want proper telly. Relying on streaming is a game for young people, comfortable with technology.
    Indeed, the Venn diagram of Tory voters and people who don't stream TV has a big overlap.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,190
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
    I see that the City wants another bailout.

    If the assets are so obviously valuable then let other companies buy them.

    If I'm understanding what Max is saying, that's the idea, but that can't be done quickly enough to protect the bank's clients from insolvency without a government bridge.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    On the other hand Crispbag's career with the BBC is now at an end. He can run his MOTD contract through to its end but it will not be renewed nor those of his mates on MOTD. A new format beckons. Time to move on.
    It does seem that is highly likely
  • glwglw Posts: 9,505
    MaxPB said:

    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.

    So in theory for the UK part of SVB the government might even make a little money out of providing funding?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Clear lead for “Don’t know”….




    I would imagine that DK largely - but not exclusively - corresponds to Unionist voters.

    For example it’s notable that when pollsters ask respondents who would make the best PM, Sunak or Starmer, the DK figure is always higher in Scotland. A large percentage obviously want to say “Neither” but are not presented with that option.
    There is a view among some SNP supporters that Forbes support is “coming from Unionists because she doesn’t want independence”. Meanwhile, Mr Kelly, late of this parish has been doing some polling:

    Regardless of which party or parties you intend to vote for in future elections, which of the three candidates do you think would be the best First Minister of Scotland? (Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase, 7th-10th March 2023)

    Kate Forbes: 33% (+10)
    Humza Yousaf: 18% (+3)
    Ash Regan: 10% (+3)
    Don't Know: 36% (-13)


    If the remaining Don't Knows are stripped out, this is how the state of play looks -

    Kate Forbes: 53% (+5)
    Humza Yousaf: 30% (-)
    Ash Regan: 17% (+3)


    https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2023/03/exclusive-scot-goes-pop-panelbase-poll.html?m=1
    Looks about right.

    Funnily enough, I think that is the order I’ll be voting myself:

    1. Forbes
    2. Yousaf
    3. Regan

    (I changed my mind about Regan 2 when she made the gob-smacking decision to hop into bed with the Bonkers Bath Bad-un.)
    If I had a vote that would be how I would vote too. Above all else the Scots deserve competent government -even if that, longer term, is a greater threat to the Union.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,575
    pigeon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting that Leavers and Tories are the two groups with the largest numbers 'strongly opposed' to the bung.

    I'm not sure how much it means, though. Far more significant to the popularity of the policy will be the numbers crossing this year.

    I think that's right. If the boats stop (or, more realistically, the numbers are cut back to something a bit more manageable) then the salience of the story will decline and so will the grumbling about the cost of subsidising French law enforcement.

    It's worth remembering once again that support for the concept of asylum in theory amongst the electorate is high (hence the fact that there is little if any grumbling about letting in lots of Ukrainians and Hongkongers,) but support for the boat people in practice is not, and for good reason. The overwhelming majority of them are young men, most of those are demonstrably economic migrants (starting with the whole of the 42% of all the boat people whom, according to the most recent available figures, were Albanian,) and they're a security risk.
    So how does this detention centre in France work?

    I could see a model:

    - you arrive in Calais & live in the centre
    - You apply *at the centre* for asylum
    - You continue to live there while your claim is processed
    - If successful you get a ticket to the UK
    - If not then you do what you want
    - If you attempt to cross illegally into the UK it’s an automatic fail

    That would probably work for the UK - we may have to end up processing more claims but that’s just an administrative burden. I guess we could put an absolute cap on the number of visas we will grant (first come first serve) as well.

    Don’t know whether it would work for the residents of Pas de Calais though

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,255
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    There is no such thing as free speech. It comes with a heavy price.

    Of course there is such a thing as free speech. There are some limits, the obvious being you shouldn't be allowed to shout fire in the theatre.

    And the most important time to defend free speech is when you don't like what is being said.

    Honestly some people here from the socially conservative right seem to have more in common with the old USSR or Putin's Russia in their views on censorship.
    Thanks Mike.
    ?

    Replied to wrong post? If not I don't understand.
    Sorry Mike...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,886

    I'm particularly amused by efforts I've seen to draw equivalence with Sugar (I think Bobbyjob here, and lots of people on twitter)

    The BBC hired AMS when he was a Labour Party member, and one of their largest donors

    The Labour Party then made this BBC presenter into the Baron of Clapton, with a life peerage

    But he better STFU when he goes against Labour

    Would Lineker have been banned if he'd tweeted support for the government's immigration proposals?

    That's the killer question.
    I might have mentioned Sugar but my main comparator was Jim Davidson, who presented Big Break for a decade. A Tory donor and vocal Thatcherite with a side order of racist standup.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,357

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!

    Do you really think any senior BBC management will be going as a result of this? These are Boris Johnson's people. They will not resign. They will have to be fired. How does that happen? Politically, Sunak cannot fire Sharp as it will infuriate the right of his party. And Sharp cannot fire Davie because it would only raise questions about why he isn't going too.

    If no football pundit or commentator will appear, how can he stay in post?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    edited March 2023
    CD13 said:

    Dr Fox,

    What's your opinion of Brendan at the moment? He's struggling, but he could do worse? Only a guess, but most fans stick with them when things could be worse. Once he's an ex-manager all bets are off. Or is it only me who's so fickle?

    I have wanted him sacked* for a year, and yesterday only confirmed that. He will relegate us. Sacking him won't necessarily stop that, but is our only chance.

    Incidentally the 4/1 on Leicester relegation is a bargain (though I got on at longer odds).

    *I never call for people in public life to be sacked, other than by the ballot box, as a matter of principle. My only exception is managers of my football team!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,552
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
    I see that the City wants another bailout.

    If the assets are so obviously valuable then let other companies buy them.

    And until that goes through? The companies who need to make payroll and those employees are just fucked? Right.
  • Reflecting on the debate last night I have changed my opinion a bit.

    Lineker was guilty of hyperbole in comparing the language to 1930s Germany, which everyone reasonably equates to the Nazis even if he did not use the word.

    He went too far in making a point about his dislike for the immigration proposals (which I share).

    However, the BBC were totally wrong to ban him and will likely have to backtrack.

    Kudos to those on here who do not support Lineker's views but defend his right to state them.

    To those who are happy to see him banned I say: we see your true colours now.

    Listen to the LBC clip posted above. It's absolutely fair to compare this government to the Nazis because you can literally substitute "refugee" for "Jew" in Braverman's speeches and it sounds like Joseph himself wrote them for her

    The Final Solution came after a decade and more of nasty propaganda written specifically to demonise. The Conservative Party are publishing their own nasty propaganda to demonise. Using the same rhetorical structures. To whip up public hate mobs. Which the propagandist then uses as something to blame the victims for.

    Not everything Nazi immediately becomes the holocaust. Where you can't talk about the dark arts of Goebbels because of genocide. We bloody well can precisely to stop things leading that far. The Nazis wanted to expel the Jews. A small chunk of Tory voters want to expel the refugees. Sink them if needed. And the Conservative Party is pandering to this. For votes.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,238

    The licence fee needs to go. Then the metrosequal luvvies ycan say what they like. If I am not paying for it they can say what they like.
    Once the license fee has gone Lineker won't be being paid as much as revenue
    will probably drop loads and hopefully he will fuck off to America.. permanently.

    I agree with you that the license fee should go - it is archaic. Difference is that I say that whilst supporting the Lineker view. I'm not saying it in a strop because someone said something I disagree with.
    What does supporting the Lineker view have to do with it ?

    Many people opposed the license fee before this and will do after it. I am one. I used to argue for its removal on the Uk.tv.misc.

    The amount of people who think the license fee should be scrapped because of Lineker will be tiny and any shitty attempt to misrepresent people opposing the license fee in the way you do is easy to see through.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,290

    This coming week will highlight the SVB crisis, Sunak, Biden and Albanese meeting tomorrow re AUKUS, and the budget on Wednesday

    And hopefully common sense will break out over BBC v Lineker

    Indeed. Lineker is getting reinstated, Tory stooges going to resign in disgrace, and we will then be told there is no story here, no public interest on how or why said stooges got their BBC jobs. Oh look, a kitten!
    How many people will ditch the license fee if that happens..
    None. However they may for other reasons. The writing is on the wall for scheduled programmes. I'm still in that minority, but even we don't have a TV licence for our other house and don't wish to watch scheduled TV there. I assume for a younger audiences this is even more so.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    On the other hand Crispbag's career with the BBC is now at an end. He can run his MOTD contract through to its end but it will not be renewed nor those of his mates on MOTD. A new format beckons. Time to move on.
    Really? His contract runs until after the next GE. Do you not sense the winds of change?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,765
    edited March 2023
    Maggie the Spaniel takes the lead with a clear run just over 37 secs

    Tiger the American Shepherd goes into second.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,361
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
    'The government of Germany in the 1930s' means the Nazis.

    Was it hyperbolic? Arguably.

    Is it understandable? Definitely.

    If the government don't want to be compared to a bunch of racist criminals, then they shouldn't openly commit crimes while acting like a bunch of racists.

    It's really not that hard.

    And that's in any case secondary to the contractual hole the BBC has now dug itself into with a Magla-mole sized drill, which is rapidly becoming the main story and could engulf the Beeb, enraging their grey vote who watch it all the time.
    Right.

    So an Asian PM, an Asian HoSec with a Jewish husband and a black Foreign secretary are all closet Nazis ?

    Doesn't sound likely to me.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,290

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    There is no such thing as free speech. It comes with a heavy price.

    Of course there is such a thing as free speech. There are some limits, the obvious being you shouldn't be allowed to shout fire in the theatre.

    And the most important time to defend free speech is when you don't like what is being said.

    Honestly some people here from the socially conservative right seem to have more in common with the old USSR or Putin's Russia in their views on censorship.
    Thanks Mike.
    ?

    Replied to wrong post? If not I don't understand.
    Sorry Mike...
    Are you ok?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,552
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
    I see that the City wants another bailout.

    If the assets are so obviously valuable then let other companies buy them.

    Neoliberal economics doesn't apply to 'our' companies.

    Political impartiality doesn't apply to 'our' supporters.

    Normal tendering rules don't apply to 'our' friends.

    Laws don't apply to 'our' people.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,605

    Labour supporting Matthew Syed comes out in favour of what Rishi is trying to do here, saying the treaties should be rewritten across the West and, indeed, arguing there should be an absolute cap on numbers - and critical of liberal-thinking on the issue. He thinks this would legitimately allow a higher number to be admitted. He does think language and tone is important too:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/our-asylum-system-has-been-rigged-for-decades-its-time-for-real-action-r3vtk3ggq

    It’s an interesting article with something for everyone.

    There may be some of the pearl clutching liberals calling for open borders he talks about, but they have no power and no means of securing power. So the juxtaposition he creates doesn’t actually exist in the real world.

    The real world issue is will the government’s plan work? The answer is almost certainly no. What may work, as Matthew says, is detailed, sustained international cooperation. The one thing that is pretty much guaranteed not to get that is what the Tory right, including Suella Braverman, has made very clear it wants - the UK pulling out of the ECHR and/or the UNHCR. So Sunak will have a very important choice to make in a few months time when the small boats keep coming.

    And, yes, as Syed says, language matters a lot. If you want a national consensus rather than dividing lines you don’t use words like invasion and accuse those who don’t agree with you of betraying Britain.
    I think you have to disaggregate the rhetoric from the policy.

    The rhetoric is political, designed to shore up the base and cause Labour to misstep. The policy is to clear the backlog, allowing quicker, legitimate deportations of those unentitled, and deal with Macron to stop 75%+ of the crossings to make the people smuggler's business model unviable.

    Sunak is brilliant.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,878
    edited March 2023

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    I think there is a way out for them. It requires some brass neck, which in Davie’s case is not, I think, a problem: ‘Gary has now served his suspension, and we’ve all learned from this episode. Normal service will be resumed next weekend.’
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,296
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
    'The government of Germany in the 1930s' means the Nazis.

    Was it hyperbolic? Arguably.

    Is it understandable? Definitely.

    If the government don't want to be compared to a bunch of racist criminals, then they shouldn't openly commit crimes while acting like a bunch of racists.

    It's really not that hard.

    And that's in any case now secondary to the contractual hole the BBC has now dug itself into with a Magla-mole sized drill, which is rapidly becoming the main story and could engulf the Beeb, enraging their grey vote who watch it all the time.
    agreed,
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,228
    A rather devastating opinion piece in the Guardian/Observer about society's toleration of violence against women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/12/wife-of-sir-stanley-couldnt-tolerate-his-abuse-neither-should-rest-of-us

    No-one is spared criticism. Something a bit sobering to consider of a Sunday morning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,190

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
    'The government of Germany in the 1930s' means the Nazis.

    Was it hyperbolic? Arguably.

    Is it understandable? Definitely.

    If the government don't want to be compared to a bunch of racist criminals, then they shouldn't openly commit crimes while acting like a bunch of racists.

    It's really not that hard.

    And that's in any case secondary to the contractual hole the BBC has now dug itself into with a Magla-mole sized drill, which is rapidly becoming the main story and could engulf the Beeb, enraging their grey vote who watch it all the time.
    Right.

    So an Asian PM, an Asian HoSec with a Jewish husband and a black Foreign secretary are all closet Nazis ?

    Doesn't sound likely to me.
    It wouldn't have sounded likely to me either, five years ago.

    And TBF they are not actual Nazis.

    Just hard right xenophobic idiots and rather inept politicians with a contempt for the law, who might be mistaken for Nazis by people with a lack of understanding of the nuances of the subject.

    Like, say, an ex-footballer who once had to present a show in his underpants because of an unwise prediction he made.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,605

    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, earlier than usual as the nation prepares for a day of doggie-excitement…

    Tories are having a debate among themselves about whether they can somehow contrive to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat or are doomed to be chewed up and spat out by angry voters whenever the next election comes.

    Senior Labour people are not arguing about whether we are reliving the run-up to ’97. That’s because none of them think they have a chance of replicating the 179-seat majority won by Tony Blair. Thanks to the dismal legacy of the last election, its worst result since 1935, Labour has a vast mountain to scale. It probably requires a swing of 12% to get over the line – a bigger shift than the 10% achieved by Mr Blair. Everyone of significance in today’s Labour hierarchy is haunted by the spectre of ’92.

    There’s sense to having a direction-setting framework for a 10-year plan of renewal, but Labour MPs don’t pretend that “mission-driven government” cuts through with many voters. By the time of the election, they will need a fistful of crisp and credible offers that they can sell on doorsteps and in TV studios. It is not hard to find members of Labour’s high command who use the word “soft” to describe their party’s support. “The deal isn’t clinched,” says one of their number. “Not anywhere near clinched.”

    The next election will not be an exact rerun of ’97 nor a rehash of ’92. History rarely repeats itself so neatly. But there are enduring lessons from both. Labour fails when its opponents have an opening to depict the party as unsafe with office. Labour succeeds when it has persuaded the country that it can be trusted with government and that it has compelling ideas to use power to make Britain a better country. Not one or the other, but both



    Rawnsley spot-on with this. There is no love for Labour on the doorsteps, just a WTF??? at the Government.

    He rightly identifies the mountain Labour has to climb. Where he doesn't go far enough is what Labour faces when the polls turn slightly worse by the next election. When the narrative becomes "Labour cannot govern alone". The story then shifts to "Do voters really want a ramshackle rainbow coalition to replace a (by then) steady looking PM in Rishi Sunak?".

    Get ready for that 92 exit poll redux, Labour.
    Yes, I sense some (not all) Conservatives are starting to rally to the colours now. Rishi is getting things done and is a very serious PM.

    Starmer is being fed his strat line-by-line by Mandelson and his ilk. He's a parrot.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,691
    Would a smarter political operator have likened the language to Germany in the late 1920s, or early 1930s?

    No, the current government aren't Nazis. But some of them are dim enough, or unbothered enough about the source of some of their support, to not think about what the consequences of their words might be.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,361

    FF43 said:

    French and UK interests aren't aligned on cross Channel migration. France doesn't want migrants turning up in Calais on their way to the UK, but if they do come France is happy for them to be the UK's problem and not stay around.

    The original Le Touquet deal was for extra policing in exchange for the UK accepting a proportion of asylum cases from France but it never really happened. On the other hand Macron unlike some other French politicians wants to keep the arrangement going. Maybe the money helps.

    If you take a step back, they are perfectly aligned: both want fewer refugees in the first place. And that also aligns them with every other European country. And that's why the one thing Sunak has got absolutely right on this is the focus on increased cooperation. This is not something that any country can solve alone. The problem is that there is no quick fix, while a lot of Sunak's MPs and a lot of his voters believe that there is. So, how does Sunak navigate that? Pulling out of the ECHR and/or UNHCR kills any chance of the UK working with other countries facing similar problems stone dead, while causing wider reputational, trade and security challenges on top. These kinds of trade-off cannot be avoided in the real world.

    I agree with your general point about international cooperation, but there is a transactional element too. Whatever arrangements you have need to be seen to deliver value. Only Macron of the main contenders for the last French presidential election wanted to retain the arrangement with the UK on migrants.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,361
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    On the other hand Crispbag's career with the BBC is now at an end. He can run his MOTD contract through to its end but it will not be renewed nor those of his mates on MOTD. A new format beckons. Time to move on.
    Really? His contract runs until after the next GE. Do you not sense the winds of change?
    His contract runs to 2025 and he will be 65. He's currently damaged goods, if youre his boss would you want to manage a ticking time bomb for another three years ?

    I therefore do sense the winds of change and say theyll find a new front of house, probably a woman.

  • Foxy said:

    This caller reads Bravermans speech from Hansard replacing migrant with jew. Listen and tell me Braverman wasn't using 1930s Germany language.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TheVojem/status/1634312033595211778/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1634312033595211778&currentTweetUser=TheVojem

    How outrageous. You can't show that Braverman is directly copying the Nazi forms of propaganda just because she obviously is. The *only* nazi comparison allowable is the Holocaust, absolutely nothing happened before that and it's simply beastly to compare the Tory demonisation of migrants and Goebbels demonisation of Jews just because the language structures are the same...
    As the Auschwitz Museum tweeted some time back:

    https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1601171008139845633?t=N5VoyYa50aXwHpUOE14-FA&s=19

    Auschwitz was at the end of a long process. We must remember that it did not start from gas chambers.

    This hatred gradually developed from ideas, words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanization & escalating violence.

    It took time. #GenocidePreventionDay
    For a long time the Nazi plan was encourage Jews to move to Africa. Then it was to forcibly deport them to Africa.

    Do we know of a government demonising innocent people and proposing their forcible removal to Africa?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,744
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
    I see that the City wants another bailout.

    If the assets are so obviously valuable then let other companies buy them.

    And until that goes through? The companies who need to make payroll and those employees are just fucked? Right.
    Capitalism, innit? The country will be just fine without a load of wankers in Mennonite trousers and with Samurai haircuts making apps that tell you different recipes for octopus.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
    I see that the City wants another bailout.

    If the assets are so obviously valuable then let other companies buy them.

    And until that goes through? The companies who need to make payroll and those employees are just fucked? Right.
    Yep. That is the free market. You want the upside, then you take the downside.

    I sense a bit of panic about. It may not be rational, but when financiers panic they are like sheep. Best to panic first.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,238
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.

    How many pounds for how much time, roughly?

    It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses?

    I can see why the City wants that.
    Except the government is just acting as a short term lender to hundreds of companies while some other bank buys the (highly profitable and well capitalised) UK arm of SVB. There's no losses. You just see what you want to see.
    I see that the City wants another bailout.

    If the assets are so obviously valuable then let other companies buy them.

    And until that goes through? The companies who need to make payroll and those employees are just fucked? Right.
    Let them go to the wall to ‘own’ the bankers, right !
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,765
    edited March 2023

    IanB2 said:

    A hotly contested jumping competition in the small category, with five dogs clear and breaking the forty second mark.

    Have I missed the Strictly Come Dog Dancing?
    The British entry won the International freestyle competition yesterday. But not to the standard of Lucie Plevova who used to win with her collie Jump Aibara every year:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5vwAox7Y4c
  • Reflecting on the debate last night I have changed my opinion a bit.

    Lineker was guilty of hyperbole in comparing the language to 1930s Germany, which everyone reasonably equates to the Nazis even if he did not use the word.

    He went too far in making a point about his dislike for the immigration proposals (which I share).

    However, the BBC were totally wrong to ban him and will likely have to backtrack.

    Kudos to those on here who do not support Lineker's views but defend his right to state them.

    To those who are happy to see him banned I say: we see your true colours now.

    I'm not happy that Lineker has been "banned" (whatever that means right now) for this; I don't really care what he tweets

    I'd just be glad to see the back of him (which seems to be looking less likely now)

    I don't pay the BBC anything, or watch it, so it's none of my business. But I still have an opinion (and an arsehole)

    It normally only occurs to me when I see the list of the top earners from the BBC. I think WTF are they paying this sleazy junk food salesman so very much public money?

  • TazTaz Posts: 10,238
    edited March 2023
    Nadia Whittome and Simon Clarke on Kuenssberg discussing the budget. We really are truly blessed with political titans in this current Parliament.
  • DougSeal said:

    Taz said:

    Lineker’s policy of spreading hatred of the government uses immeasurable hyperbole and weasel words not dissimilar to those employed by usurpers looking to foment rebellion against democratically elected governments through the ages

    ChatGPT ?
    Lineker is using WeaselGPT

    "Not dissimilar to language used in Germany in the 30s"

    is weasel for

    "Similar to Nazi propaganda"
    Rebellion? Usurpers? So the PB Tories now think that Lineker is going to lead, or incite, violent rebellion. With one single Tweet?

    If the Mail and the Express had not lathered the Government into a frothing rage about this the Tweet would have been forgotten by now, just one in a number of left leaning Tweets Lineker puts out. One Tweet, a medium known for its transience, and you decide to create a war over it. That it looks like you’re losing.

    Lineker is not the first person to describe Tory propaganda thus. A Holocaust survivor did it a few months ago and Braverman tried to cancel her too. This Government is not Nazi but it is deeply authoritarian and hates the freedom of expression that is necessary in a democracy.
    I was mocking Lineker's language: Hyperbolic Weasel
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,361
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here's Andrew Neil sporting a tie from right wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, on the Daily Politics show in 2017 - not MOTD, an actual politics show

    The same think tank that wants to scrap the BBC licence fee and privatise the BBC

    He wasn't suspended

    #IStandWithGary


    https://twitter.com/russellengland/status/1634427676164227073?s=46

    Sorry.

    You think wearing an Adam Smith tie is equivalent to comparing the government of the day to Nazis?

    Personally, I'm disgusted that Lineker was suspended as a sports commentator for sale stupid (but not illegal) views.

    But the two incidence are not equivalent.
    Sorry, Robert, but you're misunderstanding the premise of the BBC action against Lineker.
    He wasn't removed for comparing the govt to Nazis (nor did he do that, so you need to go back to what was said), he was removed for breaching impartiality.
    On those terms, Neil's action is *exactly* equivalent.
    Exactly read my post at 8.28 with an actual bbc complaints response about Andrew Neil Cut and paste time.

    The Chair and the DG need to go
    They are going! Having suspended Gary Crispbag for not being impartial like them, they can't reinstate him and pretend everyone can go back to how they were.

    When he comes back, they will have to resign. Because the firestorm or uncomfortable questions will immolate both them and their patrons in the Conservative Party.
    And we still have the Attenborough row to look forward to. Slightly different but the basic point is there - BBC trying to anticipate their lords' will, a Becket style.
    Lineker compared the language of our present government to the government of Germany in the 30s. He never mentioned Nazis or concentration camps or the Holocaust. If our present government are twitchy about it, that's their problem, and if the cap fits....

    We are always saying in schools that onlookers who say nothing are just as guilty as the perpetrators.
    'The government of Germany in the 1930s' means the Nazis.

    Was it hyperbolic? Arguably.

    Is it understandable? Definitely.

    If the government don't want to be compared to a bunch of racist criminals, then they shouldn't openly commit crimes while acting like a bunch of racists.

    It's really not that hard.

    And that's in any case secondary to the contractual hole the BBC has now dug itself into with a Magla-mole sized drill, which is rapidly becoming the main story and could engulf the Beeb, enraging their grey vote who watch it all the time.
    Right.

    So an Asian PM, an Asian HoSec with a Jewish husband and a black Foreign secretary are all closet Nazis ?

    Doesn't sound likely to me.
    It wouldn't have sounded likely to me either, five years ago.

    And TBF they are not actual Nazis.

    Just hard right xenophobic idiots and rather inept politicians with a contempt for the law, who might be mistaken for Nazis by people with a lack of understanding of the nuances of the subject.

    Like, say, an ex-footballer who once had to present a show in his underpants because of an unwise prediction he made.
    Rishi Sunak doesnt strike me as a hard right xenophobe.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850

    Labour supporting Matthew Syed comes out in favour of what Rishi is trying to do here, saying the treaties should be rewritten across the West and, indeed, arguing there should be an absolute cap on numbers - and critical of liberal-thinking on the issue. He thinks this would legitimately allow a higher number to be admitted. He does think language and tone is important too:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/our-asylum-system-has-been-rigged-for-decades-its-time-for-real-action-r3vtk3ggq

    It’s an interesting article with something for everyone.

    There may be some of the pearl clutching liberals calling for open borders he talks about, but they have no power and no means of securing power. So the juxtaposition he creates doesn’t actually exist in the real world.

    The real world issue is will the government’s plan work? The answer is almost certainly no. What may work, as Matthew says, is detailed, sustained international cooperation. The one thing that is pretty much guaranteed not to get that is what the Tory right, including Suella Braverman, has made very clear it wants - the UK pulling out of the ECHR and/or the UNHCR. So Sunak will have a very important choice to make in a few months time when the small boats keep coming.

    And, yes, as Syed says, language matters a lot. If you want a national consensus rather than dividing lines you don’t use words like invasion and accuse those who don’t agree with you of betraying Britain.
    I think you have to disaggregate the rhetoric from the policy.

    The rhetoric is political, designed to shore up the base and cause Labour to misstep. The policy is to clear the backlog, allowing quicker, legitimate deportations of those unentitled, and deal with Macron to stop 75%+ of the crossings to make the people smuggler's business model unviable.

    Sunak is brilliant.
    So Sunak’s fate is in Macrons hands. A few boats in the general election campaign and Sunak looks silly.

    Does Macron prefer Sunak or Starmer? It’s an interesting question.
This discussion has been closed.