SO [8.22am] Radio 4 presenter John Humphrys admitted earlier this week that there is a ‘broadly liberal’ bias at the BBC.
But he put this down to the BBC hiring the ‘best and the brightest’ university graduates where left-wing views were common.
There is a real problem here. If the Beeb tries deliberately to hire a political balance of reporters (as well as an ethnic and gender one, of course) a Flat Earther may inquire why all the successful candidates believed the Earth to be spherical. In the end, of course, it is bound to hire what is on offer. The interesting question would be to compare the politics of BBC graduates with those of other broadcasters (one should compare both applications and appointments, of course). A job for the EOC? Or has that been wound up?
The issue here is much more that the Mail is asserting that only left-wingers can be liberal. It's an interesting idea and one that many left-wingers love to believe; but it is, of course, a load of old rubbish.
I think for the Mail (and for a lot of people) liberal = left wing.
I doubt that it does for John Humphreys. I'd expect him to be aware of what the word actually means. The fact that the Mail has decided to assume that he does not understand it rather weakens the rest of the article.
SO, I don't think the article is targeted at John Humphreys...
Mr. Barber, I had heard about Linux being free, but also that it apparently requires some tech knowledge. For someone who publishes stuff online I'm remarkably technically unaware.
On the plus side a quick browse suggests a low/middle-end PC is a bit cheaper than I was expecting, but I'm still not happy that Microsoft being cretinous means I've got an unexpected bill. Ironic, given I had some good news yesterday (but any money from said news will be a long way off).
The simplest option is to follow our esteemed host and get yourself a Chromebook.
Pretty much everything that most people use their computers for these days is done inside a browser, and the Chromebook sacrifices the option to install other software on the computer for being very cheap, and very fast and easy to use for that price. There's an ever-increasing amount of things that you can do through your browser without the need for additional software - for example I've been doing some Python coding on my Chromebook recently.
Have a think about any software you use that isn't your browser and do a few web searches to see if there are alternatives that work in a browser.
With a Chromebook, all of your data is in the cloud. I don't have a problem with that so long as I can decide which cloud to use. Is the Chromebook locked in to GoogleDrive or can you use a non-Chocolate Factory offering?
SO [8.22am] Radio 4 presenter John Humphrys admitted earlier this week that there is a ‘broadly liberal’ bias at the BBC.
But he put this down to the BBC hiring the ‘best and the brightest’ university graduates where left-wing views were common.
There is a real problem here. If the Beeb tries deliberately to hire a political balance of reporters (as well as an ethnic and gender one, of course) a Flat Earther may inquire why all the successful candidates believed the Earth to be spherical. In the end, of course, it is bound to hire what is on offer. The interesting question would be to compare the politics of BBC graduates with those of other broadcasters (one should compare both applications and appointments, of course). A job for the EOC? Or has that been wound up?
The issue here is much more that the Mail is asserting that only left-wingers can be liberal. It's an interesting idea and one that many left-wingers love to believe; but it is, of course, a load of old rubbish.
I think for the Mail (and for a lot of people) liberal = left wing.
I doubt that it does for John Humphreys. I'd expect him to be aware of what the word actually means. The fact that the Mail has decided to assume that he does not understand it rather weakens the rest of the article.
SO, I don't think the article is targeted at John Humphreys...
No, it's not. But it dishonestly uses something he has said as a means of restating a long-cherished Mail prejudice about the BBC.
However, because of work, I have to use a windows laptop.
Whatever you do Mr Dancer, do not buy a computer with Windows 8.
I'm fairly certain it was designed by monkeys.
After a few days I wanted to throw my laptop out of the window.
Windows 8 is so crap you could mistake it for Ed Miliband or a Carthaginian Military Leader.
My new computer has Windows 8 and after the first few days of swearing at it I got used to its little ways. The built in email client if naff but apart from that I have not had any issues.
@Josias - You did not say I had made a stupid comment, you said I had a stupid attitude, which is somewhat different. What is the elephant in the room? That the Daily Mail believes the BBC is left-wing? I do not ignore that. I accept it absolutely. But I am not sure why that means the BBC should seek to spend time and resources trying to satisfy the Mail that it is not left-wing. In this case, it seems to me that the least the Mail could do is to show us the briefing document it says it has seen and explain the context within which it was issued - was it one of many, for example? How does the document compare to the actual way in which the programme was chaired? And so on. But, as I said, we clearly disagree on this, so let's not waste our own time and bore everyone else by banging on about it. I am leaving this alone now.
The BBC has a responsibility to be impartial and unbiased. There is no way they can be sure they are doing this *unless* they spend time and resources doing checks. The old "our output is balanced across the schedule" is all well and good: but it is their responsibility to check that is the case.
And that's where the BBC falls down. They should be doing this; if so, they should release the information. If they are not doing it then they cannot accurately claim to be impartial and unbiased.
However, because of work, I have to use a windows laptop.
Whatever you do Mr Dancer, do not buy a computer with Windows 8.
I'm fairly certain it was designed by monkeys.
After a few days I wanted to throw my laptop out of the window.
Windows 8 is so crap you could mistake it for Ed Miliband or a Carthaginian Military Leader.
My new computer has Windows 8 and after the first few days of swearing at it I got used to its little ways. The built in email client if naff but apart from that I have not had any issues.
It's the right hand side that annoys me, when I hover over it, it keeps on bringing up all sorts of options and I click through by accident and it irks me no end.
Gloomy report says we face massive tax rises and cuts within 2 years as politicians refuse to face up to scale of our problems and make more unfunded promises.
Is the country in a better or worse position today than in 2010?
The deficit has been reduced, but it's still huge, and we've accumulated four more years worth of debts to add to the national total.
I think back to the days of Cameron Direct, when our Prime Minister used to talk of cutting the deficit as his first priority, and I can't help but think that the last four years have been a wasted opportunity. I'll freely agree that with a re-elected PM Brown things would most likely have been a lot worse, but being better than Brown is hardly a very demanding yardstick to judge a government by.
Mr. Barber, I had heard about Linux being free, but also that it apparently requires some tech knowledge. For someone who publishes stuff online I'm remarkably technically unaware.
On the plus side a quick browse suggests a low/middle-end PC is a bit cheaper than I was expecting, but I'm still not happy that Microsoft being cretinous means I've got an unexpected bill. Ironic, given I had some good news yesterday (but any money from said news will be a long way off).
The simplest option is to follow our esteemed host and get yourself a Chromebook.
Pretty much everything that most people use their computers for these days is done inside a browser, and the Chromebook sacrifices the option to install other software on the computer for being very cheap, and very fast and easy to use for that price. There's an ever-increasing amount of things that you can do through your browser without the need for additional software - for example I've been doing some Python coding on my Chromebook recently.
Have a think about any software you use that isn't your browser and do a few web searches to see if there are alternatives that work in a browser.
With a Chromebook, all of your data is in the cloud. I don't have a problem with that so long as I can decide which cloud to use. Is the Chromebook locked in to GoogleDrive or can you use a non-Chocolate Factory offering?
You can use any cloud service you like, provided that it will work with the Chrome browser. People do use Chromebooks with Microsoft's cloud offerings, for example.
The thing about the web is that web pages are written with open standards, so that any halfway competent browser can render them. That means google can't stop you from using a piece of software that someone makes available on the web, whereas when I went from a computer running Windows 98 to one running Windows XP, I found that the change in operating system meant a lot of my software would no longer work. That's the disadvantage of a traditional operating system.
Additionally, it is trivially easy to to use an USB drive to keep an offline back-up of all your files that are in the cloud, which would be sensible for many reasons. One of the advantages of using the Google cloud offerings is that many of them cache data on the Chromebook, so that you can edit documents offline.
Various other cloud services may do the same, but I've not yet had cause to check.
@Josias - You did not say I had made a stupid comment, you said I had a stupid attitude, which is somewhat different. What is the elephant in the room? That the Daily Mail believes the BBC is left-wing? I do not ignore that. I accept it absolutely. But I am not sure why that means the BBC should seek to spend time and resources trying to satisfy the Mail that it is not left-wing. In this case, it seems to me that the least the Mail could do is to show us the briefing document it says it has seen and explain the context within which it was issued - was it one of many, for example? How does the document compare to the actual way in which the programme was chaired? And so on. But, as I said, we clearly disagree on this, so let's not waste our own time and bore everyone else by banging on about it. I am leaving this alone now.
The BBC has a responsibility to be impartial and unbiased. There is no way they can be sure they are doing this *unless* they spend time and resources doing checks. The old "our output is balanced across the schedule" is all well and good: but it is their responsibility to check that is the case.
And that's where the BBC falls down. They should be doing this; if so, they should release the information. If they are not doing it then they cannot accurately claim to be impartial and unbiased.
One way of checking this might be to look at similar organisations elsewhere (the old Commonwealth, for example) and see how the Beeb compares.
The difficulty, of course, is that claiming that the Beeb is biased against one's own politics, whatever they may be, is a free hit. And it is a perfectly respectable part of Associated Press's business plan to seek as large a share of the news market as it can. As Adam Smith noticed long ago, capitalists do not try to do this only by making their own product more attractive. In fact, AP have a far weaker case than they did thirty-odd years ago, before Sky entered the TV news market. Their whining is at least in part due to their own failure to develop an attractive cable-TV news channel.
Ed Miliband has been a strong, competent leader of the Labour Party in many ways. He has navigated his way through party reform, tackled big business and taken on Rupert Murdoch, braving criticism and mockery in the process.
On Wednesday, however, he made by far the biggest mistake of his leadership. As is so often the case, it came about as a direct consequence of one of his great strengths.
Mr Miliband is highly skilled at conciliation, and bringing all sides together to create a common point of view. He has tried to do this with a new strategy on Europe, designed to please both Tony Blair and Ed Balls, big business and the unions. The result is a practical and intellectual nonsense that will delight the Conservative Party, please Ukip and profoundly damage Labour.
"Ed Miliband has been a strong, competent leader of the Labour Party in many ways. He has navigated his way through party reform, tackled big business and taken on Rupert Murdoch, braving criticism and mockery in the process."
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
I've only caught up with PMQs, I've noticed one thing, Dave needs Nick in the debates.
Nick is very good at attacking Labour, and the legacy that they bequeathed the coalition.
Indeed. I suspect he will be even better at attacking UKIP and have high hopes of a Farageddon emerging from the EU debates - soften him up on the radio and go for the kill on TV.
One way of checking this might be to look at similar organisations elsewhere (the old Commonwealth, for example) and see how the Beeb compares.
The difficulty, of course, is that claiming that the Beeb is biased against one's own politics, whatever they may be, is a free hit. And it is a perfectly respectable part of Associated Press's business plan to seek as large a share of the news market as it can. As Adam Smith noticed long ago, capitalists do not try to do this only by making their own product more attractive. In fact, AP have a far weaker case than they did thirty-odd years ago, before Sky entered the TV news market. Their whining is at least in part due to their own failure to develop an attractive cable-TV news channel.
I'm not sure how you would compare with similar organisations. What would be your comparative metrics?
As I said above, the BBC has a responsibility to be impartial and unbiased. They are not doing their job if they cannot point to metrics that indicate they are impartial and unbiased. The dangers of not doing so are obvious.
The following on Europe sums up the problem:
13. The central paradox in the BBC’s position is that on the one hand they criticise external attempts to categorise and track their news output, but on the other they claim “evidence” of improvements in EU coverage which could actually only be verified by the type of measurement which they say cannot be applied. Their argument amounts to resistance to any form of any external, verifiable assessment. And the BBC has no internal monitoring system comparable to that of Newswatch.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
Mr. Barber, I had heard about Linux being free, but also that it apparently requires some tech knowledge. For someone who publishes stuff online I'm remarkably technically unaware.
On the plus side a quick browse suggests a low/middle-end PC is a bit cheaper than I was expecting, but I'm still not happy that Microsoft being cretinous means I've got an unexpected bill. Ironic, given I had some good news yesterday (but any money from said news will be a long way off).
The simplest option is to follow our esteemed host and get yourself a Chromebook.
Pretty much everything that most people use their computers for these days is done inside a browser, and the Chromebook sacrifices the option to install other software on the computer for being very cheap, and very fast and easy to use for that price. There's an ever-increasing amount of things that you can do through your browser without the need for additional software - for example I've been doing some Python coding on my Chromebook recently.
Have a think about any software you use that isn't your browser and do a few web searches to see if there are alternatives that work in a browser.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
In case you missed it, today is the first day of same-sex marriages in this country, because, two weeks ahead of the first same-sex weddings, as of midnight, the UK now formally recognises same-sex marraiges legally carried out in other jurisdictions. (And long may it last.)
Labour's denial of an in/out vote on the EU may well not matter much in a general election but the timing and nature of it may cost them votes in the Euros . The tories could well sneak in top place (especially as it emphasises their in/out vote offer)
That may work in 2015, but I don't see why people motivated by that would pick Con for the Euros when they could just as well vote UKIP to keep the pressure on.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
An Irish capitulation seems unlike given that it is O'Driscoll's final match. I doubt, having found themselves, say, 21-3 down, that they would give up.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Well I'm just being greedy, has been a very profitable Six Nations competition, thanks to your 11/2 on Ireland. Although I feel a bit of a treasonous pig dog, as my winnings will be reduced if England win the tournament.
Gloomy report says we face massive tax rises and cuts within 2 years as politicians refuse to face up to scale of our problems and make more unfunded promises.
Is the country in a better or worse position today than in 2010?
The deficit has been reduced, but it's still huge, and we've accumulated four more years worth of debts to add to the national total.
I think back to the days of Cameron Direct, when our Prime Minister used to talk of cutting the deficit as his first priority, and I can't help but think that the last four years have been a wasted opportunity. I'll freely agree that with a re-elected PM Brown things would most likely have been a lot worse, but being better than Brown is hardly a very demanding yardstick to judge a government by.
The truth is that the gap between the main parties was and is a lot smaller than they are willing to admit. It suits them both to lie about this. Labour lies to its supporters claiming that they would spend more and not impose these nasty cuts. The tories lie about how serious they have been about deficit reduction and use scare stories of what Labour is apparently promising to frighten people back from UKIP.
The reality is that serious cuts in the deficit in 2010-2012 was just impossible. The economy was too weak, the international position was too precarious and the borrowing was frankly available too cheaply for a politician to resist. So we had Plan A proclaimed which made modest steps in cutting the deficit, largely on the back of some fairly hefty tax increases. In general terms though the gap between plan A and plan B was not one that economists could get excited about.
Since then the cuts have got more serious but they are not yet nearly serious enough to deal with the staggering structural deficit left by Brown. As has been pointed out again today in the article Alan referred to chasing down our structural deficit is a moving target and it is moving nearly as fast as us.
My forecast is that although there will be some sweeties and announcements of additional spending supporting growth running to hundreds of millions the big picture next week will be that the budget will, if anything, tighten spending and borrowing. Most unusual for what is effectively a pre-election budget but we are where we are.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
Mr. Barber, I had heard about Linux being free, but also that it apparently requires some tech knowledge. For someone who publishes stuff online I'm remarkably technically unaware.
On the plus side a quick browse suggests a low/middle-end PC is a bit cheaper than I was expecting, but I'm still not happy that Microsoft being cretinous means I've got an unexpected bill. Ironic, given I had some good news yesterday (but any money from said news will be a long way off).
The simplest option is to follow our esteemed host and get yourself a Chromebook.
Pretty much everything that most people use their computers for these days is done inside a browser, and the Chromebook sacrifices the option to install other software on the computer for being very cheap, and very fast and easy to use for that price. There's an ever-increasing amount of things that you can do through your browser without the need for additional software - for example I've been doing some Python coding on my Chromebook recently.
Have a think about any software you use that isn't your browser and do a few web searches to see if there are alternatives that work in a browser.
Cheap, decent screen to work on and 32GB local storage means you won't need to rely on the cloud for you personal work items.
That's what my lad has got, he managed to screw it down to 299 quid, and bought separate storage (USB sticks and a 1TB hard drive off Amazon). He's more than happy with it, uses it for homework, and general surfing, and things like Lovefilm.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
I will give up putting subtle pop music references into nighthawks for the rest of the year if Italy beat England.
Labour's denial of an in/out vote on the EU may well not matter much in a general election but the timing and nature of it may cost them votes in the Euros . The tories could well sneak in top place (especially as it emphasises their in/out vote offer)
That may work in 2015, but I don't see why people motivated by that would pick Con for the Euros when they could just as well vote UKIP to keep the pressure on.
if the electorate is as sophisticated and devious as PBers are ,maybe, but people will vote (in euros) according to their view on Europe mainly (that's why UKIP does well generally at them). If the Tories can put clear water between them and labour on the issue and be seen as just as Eurosceptic as UKIP it will help
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
I will give up putting subtle pop music references into nighthawks for the rest of the year if Italy beat England.
We're not Scotland you know.
Yes its unlikely but I would probably take a nibble at 20/1 say on Italy beating England in Rome ,Couple that with a straight French win in Paris against Ireland and there is your 33/1
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
I will give up putting subtle pop music references into nighthawks for the rest of the year if Italy beat England.
We're not Scotland you know.
Excuse me, Scotland thrashed Italy with a good 10 seconds to spare.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
I will give up putting subtle pop music references into nighthawks for the rest of the year if Italy beat England.
@alstewitn: Worrying in politics when more is written on what a speech was meant to have said, was hoped to be seen as, or intended, than on the content
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
Italy are 25.0 to win against England (Betfair). France are 2.32 on Betfair to beat Ireland.
The matches are unrelated so a fair price for that double is 57-1.
29 points worse than Italy's result against England is harder to calculate but the '1 pt' correct odds are 57-1.
One way of checking this might be to look at similar organisations elsewhere (the old Commonwealth, for example) and see how the Beeb compares.
The difficulty, of course, is that claiming that the Beeb is biased against one's own politics, whatever they may be, is a free hit. And it is a perfectly respectable part of Associated Press's business plan to seek as large a share of the news market as it can. As Adam Smith noticed long ago, capitalists do not try to do this only by making their own product more attractive. In fact, AP have a far weaker case than they did thirty-odd years ago, before Sky entered the TV news market. Their whining is at least in part due to their own failure to develop an attractive cable-TV news channel.
I'm not sure how you would compare with similar organisations. What would be your comparative metrics?
As I said above, the BBC has a responsibility to be impartial and unbiased. They are not doing their job if they cannot point to metrics that indicate they are impartial and unbiased. The dangers of not doing so are obvious.
The following on Europe sums up the problem:
13. The central paradox in the BBC’s position is that on the one hand they criticise external attempts to categorise and track their news output, but on the other they claim “evidence” of improvements in EU coverage which could actually only be verified by the type of measurement which they say cannot be applied. Their argument amounts to resistance to any form of any external, verifiable assessment. And the BBC has no internal monitoring system comparable to that of Newswatch.
I agree that the problem is one of metrics. In part: the remainder is, as I said before, the politicking of all news organisations, public or private. However, if we can't identify metrics. allegations of bias are merely statements of taste. IIRC the Beeb's own rule of thumb was that as long as all political activists thought it biased against them, it was probably not doing too bad a job. Of course. all activists think their opponents' views rubbish by comparison with their own. It was an aspect of activism I was delighted to leave behind me.
"Money today is a type of IOU, but one that is special because everyone in the economy trusts that it will be accepted by other people in exchange for goods and services. • There are three main types of money: currency, bank deposits and central bank reserves. Each represents an IOU from one sector of the economy to another. Most money in the modern economy is in the form of bank deposits, which are created by commercial banks themselves."
Now is it clear? Sterling is not an asset that you have a share of. It is based on someone else's central bank reserves. So an independent country has no right to share it.
PB has been managed soley on a Chromebook for nearly two years. You get instant switch on (5 secs), no worries about viruses, and the cloud based software is free, totally up to date, and better than MS Office.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
Italy are 25.0 to win against England (Betfair). France are 2.32 on Betfair to beat Ireland.
The matches are unrelated so a fair price for that double is 57-1.
29 points worse than Italy's result against England is harder to calculate but the '1 pt' correct odds are 57-1.
I presume that is pre- commission so that 57/1 will come in a bit ,bookies of course have no commission. But yes betfair (as is always nearly the case on liquid and main markets) will offer better odds.
Labour's denial of an in/out vote on the EU may well not matter much in a general election but the timing and nature of it may cost them votes in the Euros . The tories could well sneak in top place (especially as it emphasises their in/out vote offer)
That may work in 2015, but I don't see why people motivated by that would pick Con for the Euros when they could just as well vote UKIP to keep the pressure on.
if the electorate is as sophisticated and devious as PBers are ,maybe, but people will vote (in euros) according to their view on Europe mainly (that's why UKIP does well generally at them). If the Tories can put clear water between them and labour on the issue and be seen as just as Eurosceptic as UKIP it will help
They're not going to be seen as just as Eurosceptic as UKIP because UKIP want to leave the EU, whereas the Tories want to take back unspecified powers and stay in. If you're strongly motivated by not liking the EU, you're going to vote UKIP.
BTW the reason why this may not happen in 2015 isn't just tactical. Small parties typically get squeezed in general elections because the voters mainly treat general elections as a way of voting for the Prime Minister, and the minor-party guy obviously isn't going to become Prime Minister.
In 2009 the Greens got 8% and the BNP 6%; neither party is doing well at the moment.
Where those votes go will be interesting. I think that they are unlikely to go to the Tories. Some Greens may go Labour, but canot see BNPers going to Milibands Labour.
Obviously the BNP have collapsed since 2009 but there is no indication whatsoever that the Greens are doing worse since then. I think 8% again is more than achievable and if anything I'm more hopeful of increasing MEPs than I am worried of losing any right now.
I've backed France to win the six nations at 33/1 - I'm thinking that this Ireland v France, it's usually a bad bad result for Ireland.
But 29 points worse than Italy's result against England?
England 15 - Italy 6
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
I'd want more than 33/1.
Are we not forgetting that if Italy win then France can beat Irelnd by only 1 pt and still win the title.Thats where your 33/1 comes in not the huge point differential
Italy are 25.0 to win against England (Betfair). France are 2.32 on Betfair to beat Ireland.
The matches are unrelated so a fair price for that double is 57-1.
29 points worse than Italy's result against England is harder to calculate but the '1 pt' correct odds are 57-1.
I presume that is pre- commission so that 57/1 will come in a bit ,bookies of course have no commission. But yes betfair (as is always nearly the case on liquid and main markets) will offer better odds.
Italy beat England at Rugby LEAGUE - the Betfair SP for that was ~ 500-1 I think, so it could happen
Scotland's security against terrorist attacks would be put at risk by independence, according to the former head of GCHQ.
In a damning assessment of the Scottish government's plans for security in their white paper, David Omand said thinking about post-independence intelligence plans was filled with "optimistic assertions" and financial black holes.
Labour’s lead has been cut from seven to three points in the past month. Ed Miliband’s party is currently on 35 per cent, with the Tories at 32, the Lib Dems in third at 13 and Ukip behind on 11. If reflected in a general election, Mr Miliband would be Prime Minister.
Have noticed how the drop in Labour's lead has coincided with the better weather. Nothing like a bit of spring sunshine to put people in a better mood, LOL.
Scotland's security against terrorist attacks would be put at risk by independence, according to the former head of GCHQ.
In a damning assessment of the Scottish government's plans for security in their white paper, David Omand said thinking about post-independence intelligence plans was filled with "optimistic assertions" and financial black holes.
'"Whether it’s trade unions, shipyard workers, supermarket bosses, large employers, the prime minister of Spain or now Sir David Omand, the response is always the same – everybody else is wrong and only Alex Salmond is right. It's just not credible."'
One horse I'd be happy to lose my cash today though would be Big Bucks, he will be up there with Sugar Ray Robinson, Arkle, Pele and Steven Gerrard ( @TSE) in the pantheon of greatness should he win the WH again today.
Utterly OT, but not very happy with Microsoft. Just learnt about the demise of XP, which (having done no research beyond listening to a podcast on the Which? website) seems to mean I'll have to fork out for a new computer, just to be able to actually continue doing my bloody job.
[XP won't disappear but it won't be patched anymore, making it a soft hit in security terms].
Marvellous, bloody marvellous. I was just thinking that what I really needed was an unnecessary three figure bill and the choice between alternative operating systems which are varying degrees of shite.
To defend MS: Windows XP was released in 2001, 13 years ago. Supporting and patching the OS requires massive resources. How long should they keep patching them for?
MS supports a massive variety of hardware, from different drives, chips, BIOS, graphics / sound cards, IO, memory etc, little of which is under their command. To test the patches, they need to keep a vast array of hardware in the test labs and run the tests on them. (*) It's a very large expense for something that has brought them little or no revenue for five or six years.
In comparison, Apple control their hardware rigorously, and have to target only their own hardware. Believe me, that's a heck of a lot easier. As I've said passim: MS's software engineering is much more impressive than Apple's for this very reason.
(*) It's actually much more complex than that with the advent of VM's etc, but you hopefully get the general point.
Apple are also vague on how long they will support any Apple-hardware or Apple-software you buy.
The normal rule of PB applies. When a poll is good for the Tories it is widely discussed and over-analysed. When it is bad for the Tories it is widely ignored.
The normal rule of PB applies. When a poll is good for the Tories it is widely discussed and over-analysed. When it is bad for the Tories it is widely ignored.
It's not one poll though, is it? There has been a clear narrowing across all pollsters in the past week or so.
Probably just because the sun is shining and it's stopped raining at last, but nevertheless it's there...
David Laws, in the HoC, putting Labour to the sword on extra education funding. Labour benches emptying quicker than a bottle of single malt in Charlie Kennedy's drawing room.
I wouldnt be proclaiming Eurogeddon on the back of these numbers. If GDP was a reliable indicator then we could conclude that Ireland is a lot wealthier than the UK. It isnt and we cant. The same quarter showed an increase in GNP. GNP is probably a lot more reliable for an economy like Ireland's than GDP (though it is increasingly subject to distortions as well). Things like the patent cliff can distort GDP but dont really mean much to ordinary people. Ireland's domestic economy is growing and unemployment is falling.
When did RodCrosby predict the first poll showing a Con lead would appear? May? Could be a good prediction based on this norrowing?
He's going to look smart if it happens. It's certainly looking a lot more likely now than it did last month.
ALL depends on next week's budget. This is the one Osborne MUST get right politically. Last year's was deftly handled and restored much of his credibility squandared so gratuitously in 2012.
Next Wednesday will be the single most important factor in determining the result in 2015.
Intriguing about the absence of leaks so far...presumably these will be in the Sundays
The normal rule of PB applies. When a poll is good for the Tories it is widely discussed and over-analysed. When it is bad for the Tories it is widely ignored.
How galling for you. Perhaps you should consider flouncing off the site?
The normal rule of PB applies. When a poll is good for the Tories it is widely discussed and over-analysed. When it is bad for the Tories it is widely ignored.
I see you've picked up all the tired old cliches, after only a week or so of posting here. Such a shame.
Been away for a while having been struggling to log in. I'm using a new email address. Promise it's still me though.
TSE - Clegg is the Tories' biggest asset (one reason I've come to loathe the man). Why do so many Tory MPs fail to see this? If a Tory attacks Labour it's the usual tribal stuff. But for an 'equidistant' Lib Dem to be doing it, well he must really mean it. I can only assume that Clegg is calculating that there are only two possible results at the next election. A Labour win or a hung parliament. He obviously doesn't think the Tories can win next time.
Let's just think about what he is saying. A Labour government = disaster. From what I can tell he could hardly have been more damning of Labour at PMQs. Given the need to be 'equidistant' he must surely claim that a Tory government would also be a disaster. And yet he also wants us to believe at the same time that an 80% Tory government has been brilliant. Is this feasible? Does he really believe that people will buy the idea that the 20% addition is so magical that it makes for an entirely different government? I don't think it's convincing. He can't claim the Tories would be terrible on their own and yet say a Tory dominated government has been really good. However it's been clear from the start that Clegg laws and Alexander, rather than saying they're getting major concessions from the Tories and that the coalition is much better than Tories governing on their own have instead tried to take ownership of the government as a whole. It suggests they really are very happy being part of a Tory dominated administration.
Whatever his personal unpopularity and inability to get support for AV and now I expect Europe, no-one has done more to legitimise the Tories and delegitimise Labour than Clegg. He can only be helping to move the centre ground to the right having fought an election to the left of Gordon Brown. So the left should feel no shame in despising him.
"Money today is a type of IOU, but one that is special because everyone in the economy trusts that it will be accepted by other people in exchange for goods and services. • There are three main types of money: currency, bank deposits and central bank reserves. Each represents an IOU from one sector of the economy to another. Most money in the modern economy is in the form of bank deposits, which are created by commercial banks themselves."
Now is it clear? Sterling is not an asset that you have a share of. It is based on someone else's central bank reserves. So an independent country has no right to share it.
David, you seem to miss the crucial point that a share of each of the currency and the central reserves belong to the independent country, so unless you hand them over , it is indeed a shared currency and central reserve.
Comments
Well, it's a view.
I don't have a problem with that so long as I can decide which cloud to use.
Is the Chromebook locked in to GoogleDrive or can you use a non-Chocolate Factory offering?
And that really is it from me on this!!
edukashion these days....
Commas are important.
However, because of work, I have to use a windows laptop.
Whatever you do Mr Dancer, do not buy a computer with Windows 8.
I'm fairly certain it was designed by monkeys.
After a few days I wanted to throw my laptop out of the window.
Windows 8 is so crap you could mistake it for Ed Miliband or a Carthaginian Military Leader.
Now is Ed Miliband, Neil Kinnock de nos jours?
And that's where the BBC falls down. They should be doing this; if so, they should release the information. If they are not doing it then they cannot accurately claim to be impartial and unbiased.
Nick is very good at attacking Labour, and the legacy that they bequeathed the coalition.
The deficit has been reduced, but it's still huge, and we've accumulated four more years worth of debts to add to the national total.
I think back to the days of Cameron Direct, when our Prime Minister used to talk of cutting the deficit as his first priority, and I can't help but think that the last four years have been a wasted opportunity. I'll freely agree that with a re-elected PM Brown things would most likely have been a lot worse, but being better than Brown is hardly a very demanding yardstick to judge a government by.
The thing about the web is that web pages are written with open standards, so that any halfway competent browser can render them. That means google can't stop you from using a piece of software that someone makes available on the web, whereas when I went from a computer running Windows 98 to one running Windows XP, I found that the change in operating system meant a lot of my software would no longer work. That's the disadvantage of a traditional operating system.
Additionally, it is trivially easy to to use an USB drive to keep an offline back-up of all your files that are in the cloud, which would be sensible for many reasons. One of the advantages of using the Google cloud offerings is that many of them cache data on the Chromebook, so that you can edit documents offline.
Various other cloud services may do the same, but I've not yet had cause to check.
The difficulty, of course, is that claiming that the Beeb is biased against one's own politics, whatever they may be, is a free hit. And it is a perfectly respectable part of Associated Press's business plan to seek as large a share of the news market as it can. As Adam Smith noticed long ago, capitalists do not try to do this only by making their own product more attractive. In fact, AP have a far weaker case than they did thirty-odd years ago, before Sky entered the TV news market. Their whining is at least in part due to their own failure to develop an attractive cable-TV news channel.
"Ed Miliband has been a strong, competent leader of the Labour Party in many ways. He has navigated his way through party reform, tackled big business and taken on Rupert Murdoch, braving criticism and mockery in the process."
Bouquet of barbed wire !
Yet, all this time, we were told Ed is Crap !
So much so, I am missing those threads.
As I said above, the BBC has a responsibility to be impartial and unbiased. They are not doing their job if they cannot point to metrics that indicate they are impartial and unbiased. The dangers of not doing so are obvious.
The following on Europe sums up the problem: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/109/109vw12.htm
http://store.hp.com/UKStore/Merch/Product.aspx?id=H6Q28EA&opt=ABU&sel=PCNB
Cheap, decent screen to work on and 32GB local storage means you won't need to rely on the cloud for you personal work items.
And France 44 - Ireland 3 hands France the title.
Place the bet with LADCROOKES !, Money back on the win part so long as Annie Power does the business.
The quick ground will suit more than the mudbaths we've been having so far.
You should already be on Annie Power if you followed my previous tips
(1 PT E/W)
Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-society/supporting-pages/equal-marriage-for-gay-lesbian-bisexual-and-trans-people-and-protecting-lgbt-rights
They are paying double SP if she wins by more than 4 lengths (Very possible) which should be 3-1 or thereabouts.
(1 PT Win)
The reality is that serious cuts in the deficit in 2010-2012 was just impossible. The economy was too weak, the international position was too precarious and the borrowing was frankly available too cheaply for a politician to resist. So we had Plan A proclaimed which made modest steps in cutting the deficit, largely on the back of some fairly hefty tax increases. In general terms though the gap between plan A and plan B was not one that economists could get excited about.
Since then the cuts have got more serious but they are not yet nearly serious enough to deal with the staggering structural deficit left by Brown. As has been pointed out again today in the article Alan referred to chasing down our structural deficit is a moving target and it is moving nearly as fast as us.
My forecast is that although there will be some sweeties and announcements of additional spending supporting growth running to hundreds of millions the big picture next week will be that the budget will, if anything, tighten spending and borrowing. Most unusual for what is effectively a pre-election budget but we are where we are.
We're not Scotland you know.
Eighties Awareness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09q04Dlh7r8
http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2014/03/ukip-election-broadcast-warns-alien-invasion-bradford
The matches are unrelated so a fair price for that double is 57-1.
29 points worse than Italy's result against England is harder to calculate but the '1 pt' correct odds are 57-1.
I agree that the problem is one of metrics. In part: the remainder is, as I said before, the politicking of all news organisations, public or private. However, if we can't identify metrics. allegations of bias are merely statements of taste. IIRC the Beeb's own rule of thumb was that as long as all political activists thought it biased against them, it was probably not doing too bad a job. Of course. all activists think their opponents' views rubbish by comparison with their own. It was an aspect of activism I was delighted to leave behind me.
And now, alas, I must visit the dentist.
This is now getting really basic in parts:
"Money today is a type of IOU, but one that is special because everyone in the economy trusts that it will be accepted by other people in exchange for goods and services.
• There are three main types of money: currency, bank deposits and central bank reserves. Each represents an IOU from one sector of the economy to another. Most money in the modern economy is in the form of bank deposits, which are created by commercial banks themselves."
Now is it clear? Sterling is not an asset that you have a share of. It is based on someone else's central bank reserves. So an independent country has no right to share it.
BTW the reason why this may not happen in 2015 isn't just tactical. Small parties typically get squeezed in general elections because the voters mainly treat general elections as a way of voting for the Prime Minister, and the minor-party guy obviously isn't going to become Prime Minister.
And what's the word processing programme like? Formatting books is tedious but I know what I'm doing with Word.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/03/13/salmond-plan-for-scottish-security-full-of-optimistic-assert
Labour’s lead has been cut from seven to three points in the past month. Ed Miliband’s party is currently on 35 per cent, with the Tories at 32, the Lib Dems in third at 13 and Ukip behind on 11. If reflected in a general election, Mr Miliband would be Prime Minister.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-alarm-as-lib-dems-take-credit-for-tax-cuts-poll-shows-9189391.html
Almost like a cult really.
Incredible to think how it turned sour in the end...
Con plus 1
Lab minus 3
LD plus 1
Kippers plus 1
Lead at 3% with Icm and Mori and 2% with YouGov
Just 1 outlier thats good for CON !
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/03/13/salmond-plan-for-scottish-security-full-of-optimistic-assert
'"Whether it’s trade unions, shipyard workers, supermarket bosses, large employers, the prime minister of Spain or now Sir David Omand, the response is always the same – everybody else is wrong and only Alex Salmond is right. It's just not credible."'
When it is bad for the Tories it is widely ignored.
Probably just because the sun is shining and it's stopped raining at last, but nevertheless it's there...
Next Wednesday will be the single most important factor in determining the result in 2015.
Intriguing about the absence of leaks so far...presumably these will be in the Sundays
Average lead in recent weeks has been about 5.5 overall.
This week we have:
YouGov 7, 4, 2
Populus 4
ICM 3
MORI 3
Straight average of those 6 polls is 3.8 - so somewhat below the recent average of 5.5, but not massively.
Even so, enough to give a hint of optimism to the Con side.
"Which Is Larger - OGH Bald Spot Or The Labour IPSOS Lead ?"
TSE - Clegg is the Tories' biggest asset (one reason I've come to loathe the man). Why do so many Tory MPs fail to see this? If a Tory attacks Labour it's the usual tribal stuff. But for an 'equidistant' Lib Dem to be doing it, well he must really mean it. I can only assume that Clegg is calculating that there are only two possible results at the next election. A Labour win or a hung parliament. He obviously doesn't think the Tories can win next time.
Let's just think about what he is saying. A Labour government = disaster. From what I can tell he could hardly have been more damning of Labour at PMQs. Given the need to be 'equidistant' he must surely claim that a Tory government would also be a disaster. And yet he also wants us to believe at the same time that an 80% Tory government has been brilliant. Is this feasible? Does he really believe that people will buy the idea that the 20% addition is so magical that it makes for an entirely different government? I don't think it's convincing. He can't claim the Tories would be terrible on their own and yet say a Tory dominated government has been really good. However it's been clear from the start that Clegg laws and Alexander, rather than saying they're getting major concessions from the Tories and that the coalition is much better than Tories governing on their own have instead tried to take ownership of the government as a whole. It suggests they really are very happy being part of a Tory dominated administration.
Whatever his personal unpopularity and inability to get support for AV and now I expect Europe, no-one has done more to legitimise the Tories and delegitimise Labour than Clegg. He can only be helping to move the centre ground to the right having fought an election to the left of Gordon Brown. So the left should feel no shame in despising him.