Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
That sounds ok. But I think I prefer general taxation. Or do I? Not sure. So long as we don't lose the BBC. I value it highly.
The basic problem is - why a digital tax?
That’s a tax on every business or person online.
Because subscription rates are dropping along with use rates.
But why tax people online, rather than an extra tax on retired accountants?
The latter would cause a lesser reduction in economic activity.
The more you spread the cost the easier it is to pretend that it isn’t actually that big and that we’re all funding it and watching together. They seem to believe that if they wish hard enough and wait long enough all of their opponents will somehow just drop dead and that they won’t have to actually think about what people want to watch rather than what they want to make.
I honestly don't mind them being a bit patriarchal and making what they want to make. I just wish it was also less shit.
Somewhere in my fevered imagination - there is a great big Terry Gilliam-style angry 'Zardoz-meets-Lord-Reith' head being asked to approve any simpering, feeble-minded project from a 'commissioning editor' about their latest pet idea. Zapped with lasers at the first hint of an eye-roll from the god-head.
I'd pay good money to watch that, now that I think about it. Any commissioning editors around?
Paternalistic ... patriarchal is someone else (the odd presenter aside).
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
We should probably wait for the details of the Erasmus deal first before jumping to sneer about it.
The old deal *was* greatly to the benefit of the EU, although the flip-side I suppose was the influx of smart, talented young Europeans into the British workforce.
Surely they came to study, not enter the workforce? The odd thing about it all, as I have said before, is I haven’t stopped receiving exchange students. We send our students all over the world and then we host their students. It’s brilliant. No need for Erasmus.
Do students pay fees to your institution or to the host institution for their year abroad? Also how are the exchanges managed? Is a number of students doing a course in the other institution matched up with a similar number doing the same course in your institution, or do students find their own courses and institutions?
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
Universities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.
EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.
Is this where we give the EU what they want and they fuck us up the ass.
SKS would pay full price for a Dominos pizza
Brexit was just a spiteful destruction of opportunity voted for by people who'd had their time and had no plan for the aftermath. It's been left to the people who voted against it to make the best of the mess left behind, turns out that means trying to recover the benefits at greater cost as was said at the time. Suck it up.
Standard drivel.
Brexit opened doors. Doors can allow you to leave the house, have fun, get a job, or meet the love of your life. Or you can stand at the threshold in the stiff breeze rooted to the spot, reminiscing about how great it was when the door was closed.
I thought it was like having a baby? Certainly it seems to lend itself to fanciful analogy in lieu of any mundane workaday benefits.
Fanciful or otherwise, you do seem to have had difficulty understanding it. Let me be more prosaic. With some obvious 'workaday', exceptions like the absence of membership fees (not exactly chump change when Reeves' hasn't got two pennies to bless herself with), Brexit restored a fairly large arsenal of competencies to the UK Government. Competencies only become benefits if one decides to use them. And deciding not to use them at all was not an outcome that anyone, from the most ardent Brexit supporter to the most passionate remainer, predicted.
Ah I see. So we're just waiting for the right government to come along and it's lift off. Right you are. That's good. It has the benefit of being repeatable forever more.
Brexit is like Communism. It only appears to have failed because it has never been tried properly.
I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love.
“Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"
If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?
Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.
Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
Having a large majority gives you the power to change the law.
Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.
No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.
Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
Aren't younger people allowed to enjoy scenery too? Makes you wonder why they go on holiday.
Not as much as they might enjoy a roof over their heads of their own.
With hindsight, Burnham must really regret running for a 3rd term as mayor.
I don't see he can justify running in Norwich, even if Lewis stands down, as he has no connection to the area.
The only way I can see getting selected is in a NW seat (and then it has to be because he is the best candidate). And ideally, the by-election has to arise organically or the voters will hate it (see Leyton 1965)
A Massachusetts university professor who was shot at his home has died, campus officials say.
Nuno F Gomes Loureiro, 47, a nuclear science and engineering professor from Portugal, was shot "multiple times" on Monday and died on Tuesday morning in hospital, according to Brookline police and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) officials.
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
Universities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.
EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.
Is this where we give the EU what they want and they fuck us up the ass.
SKS would pay full price for a Dominos pizza
Brexit was just a spiteful destruction of opportunity voted for by people who'd had their time and had no plan for the aftermath. It's been left to the people who voted against it to make the best of the mess left behind, turns out that means trying to recover the benefits at greater cost as was said at the time. Suck it up.
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
Universities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.
Educate, inform and entertain
If you want entertainment, then pay for it.
It is not a social good that taxes should pay for.
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
Universities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.
Educate, inform and entertain
If you want entertainment, then pay for it.
It is not a social good that taxes should pay for.
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
Universities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.
Educate, inform and entertain
If you want entertainment, then pay for it.
It is not a social good that taxes should pay for.
We do, in our licence fee
I don't, the BBC is shite so I don't pay for the licence fee.
Means I can't get Sky Sports anymore legally, but why should the BBC be funded in order to subscribe to Sky.
If you want entertainment as the mandate, then the BBC should be voluntary subscriptions of those who want it, no different to Netflix or Sky or any other entertainment rival.
"The UK sent out 9,900 students and trainees to other countries as part of the scheme that year, while 16,100 came the other way.
Glasgow, Bristol and Edinburgh were the three universities to send the most students, with Spain, France and Germany being the most popular destinations for UK students.
In the 2024/25 academic year, the Turing scheme had £105m of funding, external, which paid for 43,200 placements, with 24,000 of those being in higher education, 12,100 in further education and 7,000 in schools."
BBC on relative scale of Turing and Erasmus schemes.
@George_Osborne Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is OpenAI. So it’s a privilege to be going to work for OpenAI as managing director and head of OpenAI for countries, based here in London. In my conversations with Sam Altman, Brad Lightcap, and other senior colleagues, it’s clear they are exceptionally impressive leaders and that they care very deeply about their mission to ensure the power of artificial intelligence is developed responsibly, and the benefits are felt by all. That’s exactly what the OpenAI for Countries initiative intends to achieve, helping societies around the world share the opportunity this powerful technology brings. Am honorored to join the team.
Narrator: Last week Osborne failed to secure the chairmanship of HSBC.
Just to be clear, we used to get this man's skills and efforts for about £200k a year. Theresa May did a lot of incredibly stupid and damaging things but driving Osborne out of politics was arguably the most damaging.
You OK, hun?
That can be chalked up as a Brexit benefit! So that makes... 1
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
That sounds ok. But I think I prefer general taxation. Or do I? Not sure. So long as we don't lose the BBC. I value it highly.
The basic problem is - why a digital tax?
That’s a tax on every business or person online.
Because subscription rates are dropping along with use rates.
But why tax people online, rather than an extra tax on retired accountants?
The latter would cause a lesser reduction in economic activity.
The more you spread the cost the easier it is to pretend that it isn’t actually that big and that we’re all funding it and watching together. They seem to believe that if they wish hard enough and wait long enough all of their opponents will somehow just drop dead and that they won’t have to actually think about what people want to watch rather than what they want to make.
I honestly don't mind them being a bit patriarchal and making what they want to make. I just wish it was also less shit.
Somewhere in my fevered imagination - there is a great big Terry Gilliam-style angry 'Zardoz-meets-Lord-Reith' head being asked to approve any simpering, feeble-minded project from a 'commissioning editor' about their latest pet idea. Zapped with lasers at the first hint of an eye-roll from the god-head.
I'd pay good money to watch that, now that I think about it. Any commissioning editors around?
Paternalistic ... patriarchal is someone else (the odd presenter aside).
I did specifically mean 'patriarchal' - in the Labour Party sense. Oh so pro-equality and oh-so pro-diversity. But oh so run by dull talentless men and oh so London based.
EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.
Is this where we give the EU what they want and they fuck us up the ass.
SKS would pay full price for a Dominos pizza
Brexit was just a spiteful destruction of opportunity voted for by people who'd had their time and had no plan for the aftermath. It's been left to the people who voted against it to make the best of the mess left behind, turns out that means trying to recover the benefits at greater cost as was said at the time. Suck it up.
My heart bleeds purple piss.
From a technical perspective, how exactly does that work?
Anyway, the Ashes. I know this goes against PB etiquette but I'm feeling moderately bullish. I was right about Crawley getting runs at Brisbane remember. You all laughed and chuckled and smirked and guffawed but I was right. So now to Adelaide and I'm expecting a win or at the very worst a dominating draw. The boys have had a nice rest. They'll be raring to go.
A strangulated and painful draw is the best I hope for. The problem is the batting, bowling, and fielding.
Keep the faith, O. This is the Ashes and because of the break it's a story in two parts. We've only read the first.
On the evidence so far, despite having more actual playing time than the batsmen, England's bowlers are still pitching it too short. So not looking that hopeful.
Trump: "Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us. The illegitimate Maduro Regime is using Oil from these stolen Oil Fields to finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping. For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."
“Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"
If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?
Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.
Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.
Having a large majority gives you the power to change the law.
If the law is broken (and it is) change it.
Yes, it pays to be very careful about how you do it, but reducing regulatory or consultation burdens need not mean full and fair decision-making cannot take place.
Some people act like any reduction in statutory or regulatory requirements opens up a complete free for all, but there is a sliding scale on these matters, we can toggle it back in places without unleashing anarchy.
EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.
Is this where we give the EU what they want and they fuck us up the ass.
SKS would pay full price for a Dominos pizza
Brexit was just a spiteful destruction of opportunity voted for by people who'd had their time and had no plan for the aftermath. It's been left to the people who voted against it to make the best of the mess left behind, turns out that means trying to recover the benefits at greater cost as was said at the time. Suck it up.
My heart bleeds purple piss.
From a technical perspective, how exactly does that work?
Kidney failure? LIfestyle related type 2 diabetes at a guess
If Starmer tried to block Burnham via lawyerly dicking about it would show him to be very frit and remove what little credibility he has left.
That would be signing his own careers death warrant, not a lawyerly masterstroke.
His death warrant was signed ages ago - at least the summer. The problem has purely been one of finding a sufficiently competent executioner. Blocking one from being elected may buy him a few months more.
Or to put it another way - blocking Burnham is a strong tactical move, but poor strategy. However, Starmer has no strategy anyway, so he's not actually losing much by taking the tactical win.
Trump: "Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us. The illegitimate Maduro Regime is using Oil from these stolen Oil Fields to finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping. For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."
The European Union and certain EU Member States have persisted in a continuing course of discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines, and directives against U.S. service providers. U.S. services companies provide substantial free services to EU citizens and reliable enterprise services to EU companies, and they support millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in direct investment in Europe. The United States has raised concerns with the EU for years on these matters without meaningful engagement or basic acknowledgement of U.S. concerns.
In stark contrast, EU service providers have been able to operate freely in the United States for decades, benefitting from access to our market and consumers on a level playing field. Some of the largest EU service providers that have hitherto enjoyed this expansive market access include, among others:
— Accenture — Amadeus — Capgemini — DHL — Mistral — Publicis — SAP — Siemens — Spotify
If the EU and EU Member States insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of U.S. service providers through discriminatory means, the United States will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal to counter these unreasonable measures. Should responsive measures be necessary, U.S. law permits the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions. The United States will take a similar approach to other countries that pursue an EU-style strategy in this area.
Trump: "Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us. The illegitimate Maduro Regime is using Oil from these stolen Oil Fields to finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping. For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."
Automatic planning permission for reasonable density housing within walking distance of every train station in the land, regardless of whether it’s in the green belt, no environmental offsets for small developments any more, stopping councils from putting arbitrary restrictions on development, automatic permission for infill building on existing plots, etc etc.
No doubt the Greens are going to scream about it, but if we want to fix housing we have to build.
Someone needs to tell my local council, who seem more concerned about protecting scenery for their geriatric population
Yeah, same here, It's not the Greens resisting housing developments in my area; it's the Conservatives.
Love people being contrary for the sake of it.
Without proof it’s just anecdote 👍
I live in Sutton Coldfield. It's solid blue. The Greens have no power or representation here; all the opposition to Birmingham Labour's plans for housing in the area is coming from the local Tory councillors. Take it or leave it.
Well done you for offering a bit more detail but still anecdotal
I saw news of a huge new housing estate in the Solihull greenbelt. I am sure that will go down well.
Is that the one on Gilberts farm just by the Drawbridge Pub ? Gilbert being the guy who grows Xmas trees.
They’d already proposed a massive one on the fields behind it, which would virtually join Shirley to Dickens Heath a few years back and it got canned with the help of the local Green councillor.
The local dog walkers seem annoyed but not as annoyed as they were by the previous plans where they would have lost all of the fields they use. I got the impression at the weekend there was some resignation to it and less inclination to fight it,
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
That sounds ok. But I think I prefer general taxation. Or do I? Not sure. So long as we don't lose the BBC. I value it highly.
Per Telegraph: "Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary." So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.
The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.
Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
Back when there were just three or four channels the arguments in favour of the license fee were much stronger.
Now they aren’t simply due to their being so many other services available.
Fund the means of transmission via general taxation and let the BBC support itself. I don’t see why people should pay for it if they don’t watch it. It is, for many people, just moving wallpaper, a means of entertainment.
With hindsight, Burnham must really regret running for a 3rd term as mayor.
I don't see he can justify running in Norwich, even if Lewis stands down, as he has no connection to the area.
The only way I can see getting selected is in a NW seat (and then it has to be because he is the best candidate). And ideally, the by-election has to arise organically or the voters will hate it (see Leyton 1965)
If there was a by election in Norwich South I’d expect the Greens to win at a canter and that would kill off Burnhams aspirations.
The European Union and certain EU Member States have persisted in a continuing course of discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines, and directives against U.S. service providers. U.S. services companies provide substantial free services to EU citizens and reliable enterprise services to EU companies, and they support millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in direct investment in Europe. The United States has raised concerns with the EU for years on these matters without meaningful engagement or basic acknowledgement of U.S. concerns.
In stark contrast, EU service providers have been able to operate freely in the United States for decades, benefitting from access to our market and consumers on a level playing field. Some of the largest EU service providers that have hitherto enjoyed this expansive market access include, among others:
— Accenture — Amadeus — Capgemini — DHL — Mistral — Publicis — SAP — Siemens — Spotify
If the EU and EU Member States insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of U.S. service providers through discriminatory means, the United States will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal to counter these unreasonable measures. Should responsive measures be necessary, U.S. law permits the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions. The United States will take a similar approach to other countries that pursue an EU-style strategy in this area.
The US regularly fines European companies billions of dollars when they breach US law. Now Trump U.S. saying Europe isn't allowed to do the same thing.
There is no "discrimination" here. Trump is simply trying to impose US fiat on its former allies - while cozying up to Russia.
Trump: "Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us. The illegitimate Maduro Regime is using Oil from these stolen Oil Fields to finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping. For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."
Such a blockade is quite plainly an act of war under US (and of course international) law - unauthorised by Congress. Trump is effectively re-enacting Suez.
The European Union and certain EU Member States have persisted in a continuing course of discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines, and directives against U.S. service providers. U.S. services companies provide substantial free services to EU citizens and reliable enterprise services to EU companies, and they support millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in direct investment in Europe. The United States has raised concerns with the EU for years on these matters without meaningful engagement or basic acknowledgement of U.S. concerns.
In stark contrast, EU service providers have been able to operate freely in the United States for decades, benefitting from access to our market and consumers on a level playing field. Some of the largest EU service providers that have hitherto enjoyed this expansive market access include, among others:
— Accenture — Amadeus — Capgemini — DHL — Mistral — Publicis — SAP — Siemens — Spotify
If the EU and EU Member States insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of U.S. service providers through discriminatory means, the United States will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal to counter these unreasonable measures. Should responsive measures be necessary, U.S. law permits the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions. The United States will take a similar approach to other countries that pursue an EU-style strategy in this area.
The US regularly fines European companies billions of dollars when they breach US law. Now Trump U.S. saying Europe isn't allowed to do the same thing.
There is no "discrimination" here. Trump is simply trying to impose US fiat on its former allies - while cozying up to Russia.
And while European governments have not stood up to Trump so far, the growing unpopularity of the US among the European general public will ultimately force their hand. The traitor President is systematically destroying US power- both soft cultural influences and military hard power.
Do we accept our new vassal status to the US as the Trump administration attempts to dismember the EU and redraw Europe's boundaries in collaboration with Putin ?
Or do we side with Europe ?
It not at all clear there's any way of avoiding the very uncomfortable choices coming up, long before any prospect of a change of leadership in the US (assuming that's still allowed to happen).
The European Union and certain EU Member States have persisted in a continuing course of discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines, and directives against U.S. service providers. U.S. services companies provide substantial free services to EU citizens and reliable enterprise services to EU companies, and they support millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in direct investment in Europe. The United States has raised concerns with the EU for years on these matters without meaningful engagement or basic acknowledgement of U.S. concerns.
In stark contrast, EU service providers have been able to operate freely in the United States for decades, benefitting from access to our market and consumers on a level playing field. Some of the largest EU service providers that have hitherto enjoyed this expansive market access include, among others:
— Accenture — Amadeus — Capgemini — DHL — Mistral — Publicis — SAP — Siemens — Spotify
If the EU and EU Member States insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of U.S. service providers through discriminatory means, the United States will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal to counter these unreasonable measures. Should responsive measures be necessary, U.S. law permits the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions. The United States will take a similar approach to other countries that pursue an EU-style strategy in this area.
The US regularly fines European companies billions of dollars when they breach US law. Now Trump U.S. saying Europe isn't allowed to do the same thing.
There is no "discrimination" here. Trump is simply trying to impose US fiat on its former allies - while cozying up to Russia.
And while European governments have not stood up to Trump so far, the growing unpopularity of the US among the European general public will ultimately force their hand. The traitor President is systematically destroying US power- both soft cultural influences and military hard power.
Ultimately, perhaps. But that doesn't really say what's going to happen in the interim, which is what's facing us and the rest of Europe.
Do we accept our new vassal status to the US as the Trump administration attempts to dismember the EU and redraw Europe's boundaries in collaboration with Putin ?
Or do we side with Europe ?
It not at all clear there's any way of avoiding the very uncomfortable choices coming up, long before any prospect of a change of leadership in the US (assuming that's still allowed to happen).
There is no way of avoiding the choices.
Europe needs someone to step up.
Merz is the best hope. We shall see if he has the balls and the brains to realise the world the world has changed.
Do we accept our new vassal status to the US as the Trump administration attempts to dismember the EU and redraw Europe's boundaries in collaboration with Putin ?
Or do we side with Europe ?
It not at all clear there's any way of avoiding the very uncomfortable choices coming up, long before any prospect of a change of leadership in the US (assuming that's still allowed to happen).
There is no way of avoiding the choices.
Europe needs someone to step up.
Merz is the best hope. We shall see if he has the balls and the brains to realise the world the world has changed.
I'd agree with you. I'm just curious what the rest of PB makes of it. Business as usual doesn't seem an option.
Comments
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
If the law is broken (and it is) change it.
That would be signing his own careers death warrant, not a lawyerly masterstroke.
Priorities.
I don't see he can justify running in Norwich, even if Lewis stands down, as he has no connection to the area.
The only way I can see getting selected is in a NW seat (and then it has to be because he is the best candidate). And ideally, the by-election has to arise organically or the voters will hate it (see Leyton 1965)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly08y25688o
A Massachusetts university professor who was shot at his home has died, campus officials say.
Nuno F Gomes Loureiro, 47, a nuclear science and engineering professor from Portugal, was shot "multiple times" on Monday and died on Tuesday morning in hospital, according to Brookline police and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) officials.
It is not a social good that taxes should pay for.
Means I can't get Sky Sports anymore legally, but why should the BBC be funded in order to subscribe to Sky.
If you want entertainment as the mandate, then the BBC should be voluntary subscriptions of those who want it, no different to Netflix or Sky or any other entertainment rival.
BREAKING: The DA has withdrawn all statements made by Luigi Mangione during interrogation.
He was not made aware he was being recorded, which violates Pennsylvania’s Two Party Consent Law.
https://x.com/prosperluigi/status/2001042148322357625?s=20
Glasgow, Bristol and Edinburgh were the three universities to send the most students, with Spain, France and Germany being the most popular destinations for UK students.
In the 2024/25 academic year, the Turing scheme had £105m of funding, external, which paid for 43,200 placements, with 24,000 of those being in higher education, 12,100 in further education and 7,000 in schools."
BBC on relative scale of Turing and Erasmus schemes.
So that makes... 1
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
Trump: "Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us. The illegitimate Maduro Regime is using Oil from these stolen Oil Fields to finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping. For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2001078084972298619
Some people act like any reduction in statutory or regulatory requirements opens up a complete free for all, but there is a sliding scale on these matters, we can toggle it back in places without unleashing anarchy.
LIfestyle related type 2 diabetes at a guess
Or to put it another way - blocking Burnham is a strong tactical move, but poor strategy. However, Starmer has no strategy anyway, so he's not actually losing much by taking the tactical win.
https://x.com/USTradeRep/status/2000990028835508258
The European Union and certain EU Member States have persisted in a continuing course of discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines, and directives against U.S. service providers. U.S. services companies provide substantial free services to EU citizens and reliable enterprise services to EU companies, and they support millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in direct investment in Europe. The United States has raised concerns with the EU for years on these matters without meaningful engagement or basic acknowledgement of U.S. concerns.
In stark contrast, EU service providers have been able to operate freely in the United States for decades, benefitting from access to our market and consumers on a level playing field. Some of the largest EU service providers that have hitherto enjoyed this expansive market access include, among others:
— Accenture
— Amadeus
— Capgemini
— DHL
— Mistral
— Publicis
— SAP
— Siemens
— Spotify
If the EU and EU Member States insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of U.S. service providers through discriminatory means, the United States will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal to counter these unreasonable measures. Should responsive measures be necessary, U.S. law permits the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions. The United States will take a similar approach to other countries that pursue an EU-style strategy in this area.
They’d already proposed a massive one on the fields behind it, which would virtually join Shirley to Dickens Heath a few years back and it got canned with the help of the local Green councillor.
The local dog walkers seem annoyed but not as annoyed as they were by the previous plans where they would have lost all of the fields they use. I got the impression at the weekend there was some resignation to it and less inclination to fight it,
Now they aren’t simply due to their being so many other services available.
Fund the means of transmission via general taxation and let the BBC support itself. I don’t see why people should pay for it if they don’t watch it. It is, for many people, just moving wallpaper, a means of entertainment.
Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood.
Neither is “perfect”. But they’re the only two who have any kind of charisma, nous, or energy.
Labour needs to heed the U.S. Democrats who propped up Biden well after his due by date, destroying their chances to find a viable candidate.
There is no "discrimination" here.
Trump is simply trying to impose US fiat on its former allies - while cozying up to Russia.
Trump is effectively re-enacting Suez.
https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2000983645881020454
Lyon may have fun bowling on this wicket.
Do we accept our new vassal status to the US as the Trump administration attempts to dismember the EU and redraw Europe's boundaries in collaboration with Putin ?
Or do we side with Europe ?
It not at all clear there's any way of avoiding the very uncomfortable choices coming up, long before any prospect of a change of leadership in the US (assuming that's still allowed to happen).
But that doesn't really say what's going to happen in the interim, which is what's facing us and the rest of Europe.
Europe needs someone to step up.
Merz is the best hope. We shall see if he has the balls and the brains to realise the world the world has changed.
I'm just curious what the rest of PB makes of it.
Business as usual doesn't seem an option.