Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
They're not the really really posh of the old school though. Those people are usually red in tooth and claw Tories and fiercely patriotic - the sort whose cartridge bags and plus fours are proudly made in England. Posh lib dems are an arriviste Heseltine 'buys their own furniture' type of posh. Perhaps their discomfort within the class system is at the root of their desire to swap the old establishment for something more French.
Correct. It's not landed posh (they're almost all Tory) it's upper middle class who have a lot of money, probably a generation or two in from starting businesses beforehand. They now have a real distaste about their origins, and want to disassociate themselves from it.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
I know of someone who is prepared, just about, to use a walking stick, but draws the line at a Zimmer frame, although he has been strongly advised to avoid falling (making his bone condition worse/damaging his skull). Apparently considers it 'degrafding'. I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter. I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
What happens with mobility aids like wheelchairs and Guide Dogs is that unthinking people treat you as sub-human, and take away your agency.
In a wheel-chair they will talk to your helper, or move you around without your consent.
With a Guide or Assistance Dog they will stroke the dog, or pet it, ignoring the big "I am working; do not touch me" decal on the dog's uniform.
Two really impressive people who challenge this are Stephen Anderson, who campaigns against taxis (nearly 100 convictions iirc) and other businesses refusing him service because of his Guide Dog, and Flick Williams, who had an incident straight out of Laurel and Hardy, and is one of the small number of people who is on the front foot with Equality Act Letters Before Action - which fix Council-type discrimination in 80-90% of circumstances, because Councils rely on people doing nothing and shutting up; they are like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.
But they are unusual, and Flick had a career as an equality advocate.
You're right, of course. Must say our local pub treats me very well.
I did not take the "lived experience" point seriously until quite recently; but every day is a school day.
I'm not honestly sure whether other countries are better; but we Brits love saying how bad we are.
I'm not honestly sure whether other countries are better; but we Brits love saying how bad we are.
There are ways around it, but they should not be needed. You can fit a Hornit or a horn like Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang to your wheelchair, or anything else to stand out - but you have to go a bit "When I am old I shall wear purple!". I have one on my Brompton for buses and BMWs.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
They're not the really really posh of the old school though. Those people are usually red in tooth and claw Tories and fiercely patriotic - the sort whose cartridge bags and plus fours are proudly made in England. Posh lib dems are an arriviste Heseltine 'buys their own furniture' type of posh. Perhaps their discomfort within the class system is at the root of their desire to swap the old establishment for something more French.
Correct. It's not landed posh (they're almost all Tory) it's upper middle class who have a lot of money, probably a generation or two in from starting businesses beforehand. They now have a real distaste about their origins, and want to disassociate themselves from it.
Subtle difference.
This is utter bollocks. You have an incredibly distorted view of your fellow Britons.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
I know of someone who is prepared, just about, to use a walking stick, but draws the line at a Zimmer frame, although he has been strongly advised to avoid falling (making his bone condition worse/damaging his skull). Apparently considers it 'degrafding'. I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter. I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
What happens with mobility aids like wheelchairs and Guide Dogs is that unthinking people treat you as sub-human, and take away your agency.
In a wheel-chair they will talk to your helper, or move you around without your consent.
With a Guide or Assistance Dog they will stroke the dog, or pet it, ignoring the big "I am working; do not touch me" decal on the dog's uniform.
Two really impressive people who challenge this are Stephen Anderson, who campaigns against taxis (nearly 100 convictions iirc) and other businesses refusing him service because of his Guide Dog, and Flick Williams, who had an incident straight out of Laurel and Hardy, and is one of the small number of people who is on the front foot with Equality Act Letters Before Action - which fix Council-type discrimination in 80-90% of circumstances, because Councils rely on people doing nothing and shutting up; they are like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.
But they are unusual, and Flick had a career as an equality advocate.
You're right, of course. Must say our local pub treats me very well.
I did not take the "lived experience" point seriously until quite recently; but every day is a school day.
I'm not honestly sure whether other countries are better; but we Brits love saying how bad we are.
I'm not honestly sure whether other countries are better; but we Brits love saying how bad we are.
There are ways around it, but they should not be needed. You can fit a Hornit or a horn like Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang to your wheelchair, or anything else to stand out - but you have to go a bit "When I am old I shall wear purple!". I have one on my Brompton for buses and BMWs.
I think the challenge on the representative MPs point is that either you fall into pure identity politics (there needs to be someone with my specific ethnicity, disability etc) or those who lack representation at present end up being objectified (one MP with a disability is seen as the spokesperson of all).
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
Mr. Chris, I never said ethnic minorities shouldn't be represented. I said competency is what should matter.
"If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?"
If a Formula 1 team has an opening for an aerodynamicist and the best candidate is a one-legged, black lesbian, she should get the job. If they have an opening for a personal trainer and the best candidate also happens to be a one-legged black lesbian, she should also get the job even though it would dramatically overrepresent that particular niche demographic because merit trumps ticking boxes on a Dulux colour chart. And the same goes for if the best candidate happened to be a straight white man in both instances.
Equality of opportunity will, overall, lead to diversity, though this might be more or less in particular professions. A fixation on skin colour is the way of tokenism. It judges people by race not ability. It's deeply unhealthy.
Sport is the ultimate egalitarianism. The team boss will pick the best person for the job, irrespective of what they look like or who they sleep with.
Hence why racist football fans persisted long after teams were full of ethnic minority players. It doesn’t matter if the best player is white, black, Asian, or some alien species, the team are still picking him.
Also maybe an example what happens in an area which becomes a global marketplace of easily moveable labour. The locals dont get picked much.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Not sure about all the people in that picture, but bringing it home for Barry (RIP) and Paul Chuckle is definitely worth it.
Play for the Chuckle brothers lads!
To me, to you (etc).......
I'm not sure on middle right, top left, and couldn't be sure on the military man underneath our Liz. Looks like an RAF uniform? *ready to be flamed
Butcher Harris, as his Bomber Command crews called him. Sure, he'd be called a Zimbabwean today and anachronistically, but he was a Cheltonian by birth.
PS: top left looks like Dr Rose Dugdale but I'm not certain.
Unleash Operation Tannenberg II if the chorizo eaters prevail.
Top left is the mother of the unfortunate child (Shannon Matthews) hidden under a bed in a kidnapping scam.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
Presumably if those opinions were unpopular, a party advocating them wouldn't have just won a landslide majority.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
They're not the really really posh of the old school though. Those people are usually red in tooth and claw Tories and fiercely patriotic - the sort whose cartridge bags and plus fours are proudly made in England. Posh lib dems are an arriviste Heseltine 'buys their own furniture' type of posh. Perhaps their discomfort within the class system is at the root of their desire to swap the old establishment for something more French.
I can't think of a single Guildford LD activist who is in the slightest posh. They are pretty normal. The majority live in the town in Victorian terrace or in estates ranging from bog standard detached to semis to maisonettes. Then a few like me in the villages who are well off, but even those are all self made.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
Agree 100%.
Don’t you vote LD? Do you “look down” on the working and “middle middle” classes?
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
Presumably if those opinions were unpopular, a party advocating them wouldn't have just won a landslide majority.
The last general election was purely about punishing the Tories for being insufficiently right wing. The Labour landslide was just a quirky, unintended consequence of that.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
Agree 100%.
Don’t you vote LD? Do you “look down” on the working and “middle middle” classes?
I do but only because they're the least-worst option when I've eliminated everyone else.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
Presumably if those opinions were unpopular, a party advocating them wouldn't have just won a landslide majority.
If they're so popular, we has the party that implemented them just suffered a landslide defeat?
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
That's where you're wrong IMV: centrism isn't about whether any particular policy is from the left or the right; part of it is about picking the best policies *from* left or right. If you're ideologically left or right, you will look for solutions to problems within your ideology. Even if the best solution - or any solution - lies somewhere else. An industry is failing? Tories = more privatisation! Labour - more nationalisation!
Yes, that's not always the case, but it often is. If you're right, you tend to think the perfect solutions are on the right. For the left, they're on the left. Centrism allows you to pick what might be best from all the solutions. At best, that is.
There's more to it than that, but that's an important part of it.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
Only 49% of 2019 LD voters stayed with the party this year, with 32% voting Lab. Explains why they didn't do well in Sheffield Hallam, Cambridge, Bermondsey, etc.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
The model as it is is falling away. I'm surprised there hasnt been an effort to just make the TV License like what it was before technology changed everything. For the purposes of watching television, not limited to television as broadcast live.
So any streaming service needs tied to a license before you can watch, still per household.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
That's where you're wrong IMV: centrism isn't about whether any particular policy is from the left or the right; part of it is about picking the best policies *from* left or right. If you're ideologically left or right, you will look for solutions to problems within your ideology. Even if the best solution - or any solution - lies somewhere else. An industry is failing? Tories = more privatisation! Labour - more nationalisation!
Yes, that's not always the case, but it often is. If you're right, you tend to think the perfect solutions are on the right. For the left, they're on the left. Centrism allows you to pick what might be best from all the solutions. At best, that is.
There's more to it than that, but that's an important part of it.
I would actually like it if that were the case. I'm not tied ideologically to privatisation - I don’t want to privatise the BBC for example. But I don't really think that's how it is working out.
I think it's just the creed of the powerful. Do what we want, even if it's unpalatable or unpopular, because we hold the keys to the door.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
All three of those issues will be on the tick box of those who say the Conservative needs to be more centrist. It will say we failed because we werent nice enough to women with penises, that we were too hostile to climate catastropharianism and too beastly to people coming over on boats.
Every one of those will be used to beat the right of the party, and not laying down to it will be the party "not getting it".
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
Yes - the really scary stuff is from the almost normal looking ones *beyond* Trump. They are determined to use a second Trump presidency to get their agenda by delivering Trump whatever *he* wants - and get theirs almost as a byproduct.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
Presumably if those opinions were unpopular, a party advocating them wouldn't have just won a landslide majority.
The last general election was purely about punishing the Tories for being insufficiently right wing. The Labour landslide was just a quirky, unintended consequence of that.
It's the C word more than anything. Competence. The government were not seen as competent. Once lost its hard to regain. Even stuff that was going well appeared not to be because their comms weren't competent. The whole election campaign was one long example of they lacked the competence to govern.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
The BBC needs to be making money for the country. Why shouldn't the license fee become a dividend in the fullness of time?
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
Presumably if those opinions were unpopular, a party advocating them wouldn't have just won a landslide majority.
The last general election was purely about punishing the Tories for being insufficiently right wing. The Labour landslide was just a quirky, unintended consequence of that.
Please, please do keep telling yourself that. I certainly won't mind if the Conservatives are out of power for 15-20 years. But if you actually want them to form a government again I'd reconsider.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Let's revisit that assessment in 2027, after we have had 3 more years of people walking away from paying the licence fee. The irony is the people paying it will be disproportionately those who don't vote Labour.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
I know of someone who is prepared, just about, to use a walking stick, but draws the line at a Zimmer frame, although he has been strongly advised to avoid falling (making his bone condition worse/damaging his skull). Apparently considers it 'degrafding'. I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter. I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
What happens with mobility aids like wheelchairs and Guide Dogs is that unthinking people treat you as sub-human, and take away your agency.
In a wheel-chair they will talk to your helper, or move you around without your consent.
With a Guide or Assistance Dog they will stroke the dog, or pet it, ignoring the big "I am working; do not touch me" decal on the dog's uniform.
Two really impressive people who challenge this are Stephen Anderson, who campaigns against taxis (nearly 100 convictions iirc) and other businesses refusing him service because of his Guide Dog, and Flick Williams, who had an incident straight out of Laurel and Hardy, and is one of the small number of people who is on the front foot with Equality Act Letters Before Action - which fix Council-type discrimination in 80-90% of circumstances, because Councils rely on people doing nothing and shutting up; they are like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.
But they are unusual, and Flick had a career as an equality advocate.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
I think I saw a bit of it before I had to run for the taxi. I came away with two thoughts: that Frasier Nelson was as daft as I thought he was, and that JRM was much smarter than I thought he was
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
I am in agreement because it is one of the institutions in this country that needs fundamental reform. It still operates like it did 40 years ago, a different time, with different needs and requirements. It is clearly unsustainable, but I don’t think it’s a battle anyone wants to spend political capital on, and Labour are fundamentally friendlier to the BBC anyway.
I don’t see it surviving the next right wing government, though (in its current form).
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
That's where you're wrong IMV: centrism isn't about whether any particular policy is from the left or the right; part of it is about picking the best policies *from* left or right. If you're ideologically left or right, you will look for solutions to problems within your ideology. Even if the best solution - or any solution - lies somewhere else. An industry is failing? Tories = more privatisation! Labour - more nationalisation!
Yes, that's not always the case, but it often is. If you're right, you tend to think the perfect solutions are on the right. For the left, they're on the left. Centrism allows you to pick what might be best from all the solutions. At best, that is.
There's more to it than that, but that's an important part of it.
I would actually like it if that were the case. I'm not tied ideologically to privatisation - I don’t want to privatise the BBC for example. But I don't really think that's how it is working out.
I think it's just the creed of the powerful. Do what we want, even if it's unpalatable or unpopular, because we hold the keys to the door.
I'd argue that if you look at countries where the politics goes to extreme left or right, then you get more concentration of power in a few hands. See communism or fascism for examples. And again, they're systems where the leaders do what they want, not caring if it is unpalatable or unpopular.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
I know I keep saying it but young people essentially do not watch broadcast TV, so the bulk of what the BBC does is irrelevant to the very people who will be expected to pay the licence fee in the future. This attitude that the licence fee is sacrosanct and that the BBC must carry on running the same TV and radio stations will be the death of it. Any normal business that had to fund itself would look at what is happening with audience figures and make drastic changes. The BBC simply maintains course towards the iceberg. Stasis will not save the BBC, if we want a BBC for 20 years time it will have to change dramatically.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
The model as it is is falling away. I'm surprised there hasnt been an effort to just make the TV License like what it was before technology changed everything. For the purposes of watching television, not limited to television as broadcast live.
So any streaming service needs tied to a license before you can watch, still per household.
Makes about as much sense as forcing everyone to pay PG Tips every time they boil a kettle.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
I think I saw a bit of it before I had to run for the taxi. I came away with two thoughts: that Frasier Nelson was as daft as I thought he was, and that JRM was much smarter than I thought he was
He has a very unearned reputation for being an upper class buffoon. People who think that aren't really listening to him for more than 5 minutes.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
I know I keep saying it but young people essentially do not watch broadcast TV, so the bulk of what the BBC does is irrelevant to the very people who will be expected to pay the licence fee in the future. This attitude that the licence fee is sacrosanct and that the BBC must carry on running the same TV and radio stations will be the death of it. Any normal business that had to fund itself would look at what is happening with audience figures and make drastic changes. The BBC simply maintains course towards the iceberg. Stasis will not save the BBC, if we want a BBC for 20 years time it will have to change dramatically.
Yeap....and of course the licence fee is both totally unenforceable in the modern world and an anachronism in a world where we don't have 3-4 channels, we have 100s, but you have to have this dedicated licence to watch live tv even if you just want to watch Sky Sports (which is basically the only live tv I watch).
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV.
I don't have a telly. I don't have a radio. I rely on PB to tell me when a sporting event is on so that I can ignore it in a more active way compared to my benign neglect. Apparently the 2024 Olympics is coming up, when many people will do sports I don't care about to win medals that will mean a lot to them. I hope everybody has fun which I will cheerfully ignore.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV.
I don't have a telly. I don't have a radio. I rely on PB to tell me when a sporting event is on so that I can ignore it in a more active way compared to my benign neglect. Apparently the 2024 Olympics is coming up, when many people will do sports I don't care about to win medals that will mean a lot to them. I hope everybody has fun which I will cheerfully ignore.
Discovery now own the rights to the full Olympic coverage. If you want to watch on BBC, it will again be missing live coverage of sports / medals. Max 2 channels of live events at a time.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
The model as it is is falling away. I'm surprised there hasnt been an effort to just make the TV License like what it was before technology changed everything. For the purposes of watching television, not limited to television as broadcast live.
So any streaming service needs tied to a license before you can watch, still per household.
Makes about as much sense as forcing everyone to pay PG Tips every time they boil a kettle.
And would be just as hard to enforce.
Last time I looked, we don't have a national tea supplier.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
That's where you're wrong IMV: centrism isn't about whether any particular policy is from the left or the right; part of it is about picking the best policies *from* left or right. If you're ideologically left or right, you will look for solutions to problems within your ideology. Even if the best solution - or any solution - lies somewhere else. An industry is failing? Tories = more privatisation! Labour - more nationalisation!
Yes, that's not always the case, but it often is. If you're right, you tend to think the perfect solutions are on the right. For the left, they're on the left. Centrism allows you to pick what might be best from all the solutions. At best, that is.
There's more to it than that, but that's an important part of it.
I would actually like it if that were the case. I'm not tied ideologically to privatisation - I don’t want to privatise the BBC for example. But I don't really think that's how it is working out.
I think it's just the creed of the powerful. Do what we want, even if it's unpalatable or unpopular, because we hold the keys to the door.
I'd argue that if you look at countries where the politics goes to extreme left or right, then you get more concentration of power in a few hands. See communism or fascism for examples. And again, they're systems where the leaders do what they want, not caring if it is unpalatable or unpopular.
Well, there we agree completely. The opposite, and ideal system has to be Switzerland. An active participatory democracy, a people closely involved in the defence of the nation and civic life, significant constraints upon the power of politicians. But I don’t see the centrists moving us toward that model. I think their approach is 'Calm down dear, let us do the governing'. And that's not healthy either (though infinitely preferable to an outright dictatorship).
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
They're not the really really posh of the old school though. Those people are usually red in tooth and claw Tories and fiercely patriotic - the sort whose cartridge bags and plus fours are proudly made in England. Posh lib dems are an arriviste Heseltine 'buys their own furniture' type of posh. Perhaps their discomfort within the class system is at the root of their desire to swap the old establishment for something more French.
Correct. It's not landed posh (they're almost all Tory) it's upper middle class who have a lot of money, probably a generation or two in from starting businesses beforehand. They now have a real distaste about their origins, and want to disassociate themselves from it.
Subtle difference.
This is utter bollocks. You have an incredibly distorted view of your fellow Britons.
At the very least, Casino has Conservative and Labour voters the wrong way round. Labour voters have higher incomes and higher levels of education than Tories.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
The BBC needs to be making money for the country. Why shouldn't the license fee become a dividend in the fullness of time?
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I made this very point during the election, which is why I went in on the Greens (and won ). It's the face of polite wealthy people to express their disdain in a safe way. Just like Reform, their antimatter twin, they feed a need and won. Now that Labour are governing and. by making choices, making enemies, the Greens will soak up even more of the nice-people-guilt pond and may win even more seats.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
The problem is that the license fee doesn’t fit with how the young consume media.
My daughters see it as bizarre and completely out of their world.
The license fee as a funding mechanism was an accident of history and technology. They actually attempted to do it as a decoder box, originally - but the technology wasn’t up to it at the time.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
My suggestion for the BBC has long been to split off its news/current affairs/documentaries arm and fund that through general taxation. The inform/educate piece is still relevant today and a justifiable use of taxpayers money.
Then allow it to fully monetise its archives to assist it in financing its commercial arm, which would work best on a subscription model.
If there is concern that there still needs to be some form of incubator service for up and coming talent that is not served by the commercial service, that can certainly be set up as another arm, though really it’s essentially what Channel 4’s mission statement is and they should really be encouraged to and given the tools to perform that role better.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
The problem is that the license fee doesn’t fit with how the young consume media.
My daughters see it as bizarre and completely out of their world.
The license fee as a funding mechanism was an accident of history and technology. They actually attempted to do it as a decoder box, originally - but the technology wasn’t up to it at the time.
Absolutely agree. We have been having these discussions for the past 10 years and it seems like we are going to get another 10 years of the status quo.
Quite an interesting Spectator TV discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg before an audience of old Tories.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
Outside of the rhetoric, wouldn't the governments of the last four years be considered to the left of Blair?
'The political centre' is not a quantifiable concept, and it's certainly not based on an estimation of the UK electorate's current opinions. It is whatever 'we' ('we' being the global governing class) say it is. Women with willies? Centre. Trillions on Net Zero whilst industry departs to China? Centre. City the size of London being imported? Centre.
Presumably if those opinions were unpopular, a party advocating them wouldn't have just won a landslide majority.
The last general election was purely about punishing the Tories for being insufficiently right wing. The Labour landslide was just a quirky, unintended consequence of that.
It's the C word more than anything. Competence. The government were not seen as competent. Once lost its hard to regain. Even stuff that was going well appeared not to be because their comms weren't competent. The whole election campaign was one long example of they lacked the competence to govern.
Generally agree with that. However, it won't take much for Starmer to disappoint on the downside. There was no great love for Labour - they got in on the basis that "they have to be better than the last lot".
Well, maybe. They still have to show an aptitude to juggle multiple Ming vases. That's what Government is. Nobody comes into this goverment with a solid track record of being able to juggle.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
The model as it is is falling away. I'm surprised there hasnt been an effort to just make the TV License like what it was before technology changed everything. For the purposes of watching television, not limited to television as broadcast live.
So any streaming service needs tied to a license before you can watch, still per household.
Makes about as much sense as forcing everyone to pay PG Tips every time they boil a kettle.
And would be just as hard to enforce.
Last time I looked, we don't have a national tea supplier.
Nor do we need a national television supplier forced on us by the government.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
I have just watched the funiest video I have seen all year. Honestly, it's brilliant
However, it involves a certain technology. I've no desire to be banned, I've also no desire to talk about tech of any kind, I am about to go out. I just want to give you a good laugh
Will the mods agree not to ban me for linking this?
Weirdly as this time of no money in the BBC, they are currently expanding their radio offerings to try and crush the niche commercial market that specialise in golden oldies stations.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
Its a huge missed opportunity if they stick with (only) the licence fee. In 5 years we will still be having the same conversation about how the BBC can't afford half the stuff that all their rivals are doing, that they are still waiting on favours from actors to fit in another season of a popular show around their commitments to Netflix etc.
The problem is that the license fee doesn’t fit with how the young consume media.
My daughters see it as bizarre and completely out of their world.
The license fee as a funding mechanism was an accident of history and technology. They actually attempted to do it as a decoder box, originally - but the technology wasn’t up to it at the time.
Absolutely agree. We have been having these discussions for the past 10 years and it seems like we are going to get another 10 years of the status quo.
Yes. The license fee is seen as Sacred.
The follow on suggestion, as I understand it, is a Data Tax - fund the BBC by a tax on ISPs.
How should the broadcast radio/tv spectrum be used then if there's no way to charge for the material it transmits other than coercive taxation a.k.a. licence fee?
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
That is the Stupidity Tax. You don't pay it unless you are stupid enough to gamble your money away on odds that resemble those of getting struck by lightning.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
They’re not going to change the funding model anyway. If they do anything they’ll change the governance structure, but the license fee isn’t going to die under a Labour government. They have made that as clear as can be.
The model as it is is falling away. I'm surprised there hasnt been an effort to just make the TV License like what it was before technology changed everything. For the purposes of watching television, not limited to television as broadcast live.
So any streaming service needs tied to a license before you can watch, still per household.
Makes about as much sense as forcing everyone to pay PG Tips every time they boil a kettle.
And would be just as hard to enforce.
Last time I looked, we don't have a national tea supplier.
Nor do we need a national television supplier forced on us by the government.
If they agreed to show sport, SKY would have a better case to make to be that national television supplier.
How should the broadcast radio/tv spectrum be used then if there's no way to charge for the material it transmits other than coercive taxation a.k.a. licence fee?
In not especially many years, broadcast will be ending. It will all be via the Internet.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
Starmer has more important things to do than worry about the BBC.
You are right, but the whole issue with what to do with the BBC has been dodged for a couple of decades now since multi-channel platforms like Sky started to become popular. It's even more pressing now, as BBC audience figures for people under 30 are dire as people move to streaming services for their viewing.
If the BBC had to raise its own funds change would already be underway, there is no way a commercial broadcaster could ignore what is happening.
The BBC is a bit like the NHS, we were amongst the first to adopt public sector broadcasting and universal health care, but we have stuck with approaches to delivering those services that are outdated, and we could almost certainly find a better model from another country. We don't seem to grasp that our existing approaches are slowly killing these services. If we had to create a BBC or NHS today we would almost certainly do it very differently.
How should the broadcast radio/tv spectrum be used then if there's no way to charge for the material it transmits other than coercive taxation a.k.a. licence fee?
In not especially many years, broadcast will be ending. It will all be via the Internet.
Indeed. But the spectrum is a resource that can be used. It is a pure public good. Perhaps it can be assigned to government information programmes. Propaganda for Winston Smith …
Sunday: 20 million people watch a football match live on the BBC.
Well if you want some numbers, under 30s watch about 35 minutes of live TV and the over 75s watch 8 times as much. Viewing by young people halved between 2017 and 2022. This is a path that in any other industry would result in top-to-bottom restructuring, it's an existential issue for the BBC. Carrying on doing the same old thing will end the BBC.
The answer is to split the bbc into two - a taxpayer funded public service broadcaster (News, radio, documentaries, arts) and a commercial popular broadcaster (most entertainment). Leave it up to local government to fund ALBA/S4C if they want.
Govt also need to sort Sky by splitting up the platform ans their channels to allow some real competition there too
Sky’s pay tv monopoly and their awful shows set the uk pay tv industry back decades !! Overdue to right that wrong
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
We should definitely have more left-handed MPs because everyone knows left-handed people are cleverer, nicer and generally better in every way.
Faddish thinking is hobbling education in the rich world Test scores have been stagnant or worse for more than a decade
In America long-running tests of maths and reading find that attainment peaked in the early 2010s. Since then, average performance there has gone sideways or backwards. In Finland, France, Germany and the Netherlands, among other places, scores in some international tests have been falling for years. What has gone wrong?"
How should the broadcast radio/tv spectrum be used then if there's no way to charge for the material it transmits other than coercive taxation a.k.a. licence fee?
In not especially many years, broadcast will be ending. It will all be via the Internet.
Indeed. But the spectrum is a resource that can be used. It is a pure public good. Perhaps it can be assigned to government information programmes. Propaganda for Winston Smith …
The frequencies will be auctioned off for commercial use for large amounts of money.
This will be one of the motivations for the switchover.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
How should the broadcast radio/tv spectrum be used then if there's no way to charge for the material it transmits other than coercive taxation a.k.a. licence fee?
In not especially many years, broadcast will be ending. It will all be via the Internet.
Indeed. But the spectrum is a resource that can be used. It is a pure public good. Perhaps it can be assigned to government information programmes. Propaganda for Winston Smith …
Time for a reminder of the mountain that the new Government has to climb to fulfil its house building targets. It's not just determined Nimby resistance and the question marks over the capacity of the construction industry to deliver. It's also the terrible game of financial Russian roulette that buyers of new builds have to play.
When Dayle Dixon and Mark Lee bought an attractive new house on the outskirts of Ivybridge in Devon in 2018, they believed it would be their forever home. But less than six years later it has been valued at just £1, and the couple are desperate to move out...
...the property, which they bought from the Barratt Developments subsidiary David Wilson Homes for £274,995, was valued last year by independent chartered surveyors at £1 after a catalogue of major defects emerged. The surveyors said that without the problems, it would have been worth £330,000...
...Since they moved in Dixon has had time signed off work suffering from stress and anxiety, which she blames on the problems.
“I have developed PTSD, suffer from nightmares and sweats and can’t function properly. A lot of the time I feel physically sick,” she says. “We are living in a house that is a complete mess.”
The chartered surveyors who last year valued the couple’s house at £1 listed numerous defects in their valuation report, including inadequate damp proofing, water ingress, inadequate floor screed (used to create an even floor surface), inadequate window design, and damaged and corroding structural floor beams.
The report stated: “The ground floor will have to be stripped back to shell stage, sections of structural walls and floors will have to be removed, and it is likely that further defects which will require repair will be identified as works progress.”
House builders destroy people's lives when they flog them grossly deficient properties which, for reasons known only unto God, aren't covered by the same consumer protections applied to other products. If you buy a dodgy kettle for a tenner from Tesco and it won't work properly you can take it back to the shop and demand a refund. If you spend half-a-million quid on a new house that turns out to be structurally unsound then all you can do is plead desperately, and with no guarantee of success, with the builder for their mistakes to be corrected. As a result, I would never even consider buying a new build and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Incidentally, for another one of David Wilson Homes' greatest hits, just search "David Wilson Homes Cambridge demolition." The best that can be said of that example is that the build quality was so bad that the properties concerned were never inflicted upon unsuspecting and very unlucky buyers.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
We should definitely have more left-handed MPs because everyone knows left-handed people are cleverer, nicer and generally better in every way.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
We should definitely have more left-handed MPs because everyone knows left-handed people are cleverer, nicer and generally better in every way.
A sinister post! Me encanta!
A friend of mine sits as a JP. He was dealing with a road rage incident where it was accepted the accused had put his hand through the window "but there was nothing sinister about it".
My friend said, "ah, so it was his right hand." Total consternation in the court and after a delay it is confirmed that it was indeed his right hand. My friend uses it as a good example of why not to crack jokes on the bench.
4 week recess from the end of July. 30 bills in the Speech, allegedly. Looking at the G piece, teh tax ones are the rabbits in the hat. A lot of big stuff, I'd say.
The Commons will break for a four-week summer recess at the end of July before returning at the start of September. Recess was shortened by a week following the election, after Keir Starmer said he wanted more time to set out his government’s first steps.
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
That’s true but the government’s attitude to the BBC is much more supportive compared to the Tories who have spent years attacking it .
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Yay to Labour, for their propping-up of what’s almost certainly the single most regressive tax of all, resulting in nearly 50,000 people per year, mostly women in single-adult households, receiving a criminal record for non-payment.
Those well off enough to afford an EV can evade it completely, those who need to drive an old banger to their minimum wage job aren't so fortunate.
The public transport enthusiasts on this forum will say that the poorest x% don’t go near a private car though, although I obviously agree with you on the substantive point that it costs a lot of money to be seen to be green.
Sunday: 20 million people watch a football match live on the BBC.
Well if you want some numbers, under 30s watch about 35 minutes of live TV and the over 75s watch 8 times as much. Viewing by young people halved between 2017 and 2022. This is a path that in any other industry would result in top-to-bottom restructuring, it's an existential issue for the BBC. Carrying on doing the same old thing will end the BBC.
I'm hardly under 30 but in fact this month is I think the first time I've watched live TV this year, a combination of the election results and football.
I would watch cricket, which would bump my hours up if there was any.
Sunday: 20 million people watch a football match live on the BBC.
Well if you want some numbers, under 30s watch about 35 minutes of live TV and the over 75s watch 8 times as much. Viewing by young people halved between 2017 and 2022. This is a path that in any other industry would result in top-to-bottom restructuring, it's an existential issue for the BBC. Carrying on doing the same old thing will end the BBC.
I'm hardly under 30 but in fact this month is I think the first time I've watched live TV this year, a combination of the election results and football.
I would watch cricket, which would bump my hours up if there was any.
Forgot about the Six Nations - saw a couple of them too.
Sunday: 20 million people watch a football match live on the BBC.
Well if you want some numbers, under 30s watch about 35 minutes of live TV and the over 75s watch 8 times as much. Viewing by young people halved between 2017 and 2022. This is a path that in any other industry would result in top-to-bottom restructuring, it's an existential issue for the BBC. Carrying on doing the same old thing will end the BBC.
I'm hardly under 30 but in fact this month is I think the first time I've watched live TV this year, a combination of the election results and football.
I would watch cricket, which would bump my hours up if there was any.
The BBC have some games from the Hundred, but I am not sure if you class that as cricket. And this year has very weak line ups, as lots of the superstar white ball players have taken the MLC money / having a rest after IPL + WC.
Sunday: 20 million people watch a football match live on the BBC.
Well if you want some numbers, under 30s watch about 35 minutes of live TV and the over 75s watch 8 times as much. Viewing by young people halved between 2017 and 2022. This is a path that in any other industry would result in top-to-bottom restructuring, it's an existential issue for the BBC. Carrying on doing the same old thing will end the BBC.
I'm hardly under 30 but in fact this month is I think the first time I've watched live TV this year, a combination of the election results and football.
I would watch cricket, which would bump my hours up if there was any.
The BBC have some games from the Hundred, but I am not sure if you class that as cricket. And this year has very weak line ups, as lots of the superstar white ball players have taken the MLC money / having a rest after IPL + WC.
You guessed right that I'm not the Hundred's greatest fan. I looked at it briefly the first season but as there isn't a team called 'Surrey' I can't work up any enthusiasm.
Comments
Subtle difference.
There are ways around it, but they should not be needed. You can fit a Hornit or a horn like Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang to your wheelchair, or anything else to stand out - but you have to go a bit "When I am old I shall wear purple!". I have one on my Brompton for buses and BMWs.
Hornit: https://youtu.be/ORRBq9O5pEg?t=14
You have an incredibly distorted view of your fellow Britons.
This bit features an angry denunciation of Rees Mogg's failure to understand that elections are always won from the centre from an audience member (PBer?) and Rees Mogg's counter-argument.
https://youtu.be/PfB-OF_5sLs?t=1156&si=RvVTGqAbl4RvgSgy
Not sure what the answer is tbh.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c047pmx47rno
But he couldn't change it anyway. The charter doesn't come up for renewal until 2027. What a weird story. If he was saying ruling out any changes post 2027, now that would be a story.
The long term future of the BBC is on more solid ground after the general election.
Do you “look down” on the working and “middle middle” classes?
Yes, that's not always the case, but it often is. If you're right, you tend to think the perfect solutions are on the right. For the left, they're on the left. Centrism allows you to pick what might be best from all the solutions. At best, that is.
There's more to it than that, but that's an important part of it.
Only 49% of 2019 LD voters stayed with the party this year, with 32% voting Lab. Explains why they didn't do well in Sheffield Hallam, Cambridge, Bermondsey, etc.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2024/07/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-post-vote-poll/
So any streaming service needs tied to a license before you can watch, still per household.
I think it's just the creed of the powerful. Do what we want, even if it's unpalatable or unpopular, because we hold the keys to the door.
Every one of those will be used to beat the right of the party, and not laying down to it will be the party "not getting it".
Even stuff that was going well appeared not to be because their comms weren't competent. The whole election campaign was one long example of they lacked the competence to govern.
I don’t see it surviving the next right wing government, though (in its current form).
https://x.com/latikambourke/status/1812032296288915770
And would be just as hard to enforce.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24050308.talktv-number-people-prosecuted-not-paying-tv-licence-revealed/
My daughters see it as bizarre and completely out of their world.
The license fee as a funding mechanism was an accident of history and technology. They actually attempted to do it as a decoder box, originally - but the technology wasn’t up to it at the time.
Then allow it to fully monetise its archives to assist it in financing its commercial arm, which would work best on a subscription model.
If there is concern that there still needs to be some form of incubator service for up and coming talent that is not served by the commercial service, that can certainly be set up as another arm, though really it’s essentially what Channel 4’s mission statement is and they should really be encouraged to and given the tools to perform that role better.
Well, maybe. They still have to show an aptitude to juggle multiple Ming vases. That's what Government is. Nobody comes into this goverment with a solid track record of being able to juggle.
However, it involves a certain technology. I've no desire to be banned, I've also no desire to talk about tech of any kind, I am about to go out. I just want to give you a good laugh
Will the mods agree not to ban me for linking this?
The follow on suggestion, as I understand it, is a Data Tax - fund the BBC by a tax on ISPs.
Sunday: 20 million people watch a football match live on the BBC.
Discuss. Use both sides of the paper...
If the BBC had to raise its own funds change would already be underway, there is no way a commercial broadcaster could ignore what is happening.
The BBC is a bit like the NHS, we were amongst the first to adopt public sector broadcasting and universal health care, but we have stuck with approaches to delivering those services that are outdated, and we could almost certainly find a better model from another country. We don't seem to grasp that our existing approaches are slowly killing these services. If we had to create a BBC or NHS today we would almost certainly do it very differently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkgl37lp7no
I may have missed this, but will there still be a summer Recess, and how has that worked out date wise in former summer elections (eg June)?
If you want to jink the win...
You got me before I edited. Now done.
(Edit)
Or verse-vica
Apologies.
Govt also need to sort Sky by splitting up the platform ans their channels to allow some real competition there too
Sky’s pay tv monopoly and their awful shows set the uk pay tv industry back decades !! Overdue to right that wrong
Sadly no government believes in competition !!
Faddish thinking is hobbling education in the rich world
Test scores have been stagnant or worse for more than a decade
In America long-running tests of maths and reading find that attainment peaked in the early 2010s. Since then, average performance there has gone sideways or backwards. In Finland, France, Germany and the Netherlands, among other places, scores in some international tests have been falling for years. What has gone wrong?"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/07/11/faddish-thinking-is-hobbling-education-in-the-rich-world
This will be one of the motivations for the switchover.
Those well off enough to afford an EV can evade it completely, those who need to drive an old banger to their minimum wage job aren't so fortunate.
When Dayle Dixon and Mark Lee bought an attractive new house on the outskirts of Ivybridge in Devon in 2018, they believed it would be their forever home. But less than six years later it has been valued at just £1, and the couple are desperate to move out...
...the property, which they bought from the Barratt Developments subsidiary David Wilson Homes for £274,995, was valued last year by independent chartered surveyors at £1 after a catalogue of major defects emerged. The surveyors said that without the problems, it would have been worth £330,000...
...Since they moved in Dixon has had time signed off work suffering from stress and anxiety, which she blames on the problems.
“I have developed PTSD, suffer from nightmares and sweats and can’t function properly. A lot of the time I feel physically sick,” she says. “We are living in a house that is a complete mess.”
The chartered surveyors who last year valued the couple’s house at £1 listed numerous defects in their valuation report, including inadequate damp proofing, water ingress, inadequate floor screed (used to create an even floor surface), inadequate window design, and damaged and corroding structural floor beams.
The report stated: “The ground floor will have to be stripped back to shell stage, sections of structural walls and floors will have to be removed, and it is likely that further defects which will require repair will be identified as works progress.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/money/article/2024/jul/13/new-build-home-barratt-house
House builders destroy people's lives when they flog them grossly deficient properties which, for reasons known only unto God, aren't covered by the same consumer protections applied to other products. If you buy a dodgy kettle for a tenner from Tesco and it won't work properly you can take it back to the shop and demand a refund. If you spend half-a-million quid on a new house that turns out to be structurally unsound then all you can do is plead desperately, and with no guarantee of success, with the builder for their mistakes to be corrected. As a result, I would never even consider buying a new build and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Incidentally, for another one of David Wilson Homes' greatest hits, just search "David Wilson Homes Cambridge demolition." The best that can be said of that example is that the build quality was so bad that the properties concerned were never inflicted upon unsuspecting and very unlucky buyers.
My friend said, "ah, so it was his right hand." Total consternation in the court and after a delay it is confirmed that it was indeed his right hand. My friend uses it as a good example of why not to crack jokes on the bench.
4 week recess from the end of July. 30 bills in the Speech, allegedly. Looking at the G piece, teh tax ones are the rabbits in the hat. A lot of big stuff, I'd say.
The Commons will break for a four-week summer recess at the end of July before returning at the start of September. Recess was shortened by a week following the election, after Keir Starmer said he wanted more time to set out his government’s first steps.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/11/uk-ministers-preparing-kings-speech-containing-at-least-30-bills
I would watch cricket, which would bump my hours up if there was any.