Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
He retained Phil Woolas as Shadow Immigration Minister.
It's a terminology issue.
Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas knew all three statements were untrue, and was therefore guilty of illegal practices under election law.
'I see after all his bluster that Darling and No Scotland campaign have chickened out of the debate with Alex Salmond.'
It was Salmond that chickened out,but why let facts get in the way.
'A Better Together insider said: “This is astonishing stuff. STV told us that they would not negotiate on the date of this debate. They were emphatic that the date would not change.
“That hard line stance lasted until Salmond decided that, even although he was free on that date, he didn’t fancy debating Alistair. STV have simply rolled over. It is not on.”
Mr Darling has accepted another invitation for a debate on the BBC on August 12 but it was not known whether the First Minister would participate.'
It was very clear in the note Salmond sent , it said Cameron on July 16th and if not Darling in August. As ever BT do not like public debate they only want it if scripted by them. They will like BBC more given their well documented bias.
Let's hope they go for TV Licensing (i.e. the BBC), who use much the same tactics.
I'd abolish the idiot box license, save the admin costs and fund a more streamlined Beeb from general taxation.
Sorted.
General taxation should fund the purely "public interest" programs, like news, documentaries etc. All the entertainment stuff the BBC should be able to raise its own revenue for, either via ads or subscriptions.
Playing devil's advocate, if 80% of taxpayers would prefer to watch Strictly than a documentary about the gothic revival, why is paying for the latter in the "public interest"?
Because individual enjoyment should be a matter for individuals and the private market. Public interest programs are those which have externalities that benefit broader society, such as improving the education of the nation.
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.
Perhaps Strictly encourages people to take up ballroom dancing, with attendant health benefits. It's a public service in its own right.
Let's hope they go for TV Licensing (i.e. the BBC), who use much the same tactics.
I'd abolish the idiot box license, save the admin costs and fund a more streamlined Beeb from general taxation.
Sorted.
General taxation should fund the purely "public interest" programs, like news, documentaries etc. All the entertainment stuff the BBC should be able to raise its own revenue for, either via ads or subscriptions.
Playing devil's advocate, if 80% of taxpayers would prefer to watch Strictly than a documentary about the gothic revival, why is paying for the latter in the "public interest"?
Because individual enjoyment should be a matter for individuals and the private market. Public interest programs are those which have externalities that benefit broader society, such as improving the education of the nation.
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.
Perhaps Strictly encourages people to take up ballroom dancing, with attendant health benefits. It's a public service in its own right.
There must be a hundred more cost efficient ways of improving public health than funding Strictly Come Dancing.
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.
Yes, it is. But we're already implicitly choosing to define what is in the public interest by the BBC's editorial decisions. All I am recommending is making that fuzzy area less fuzzy, and that taxpayers' money is spent in an accountable way. If you don't want the state deciding these things, then privatise the whole damn channel.
Let's hope they go for TV Licensing (i.e. the BBC), who use much the same tactics.
I'd abolish the idiot box license, save the admin costs and fund a more streamlined Beeb from general taxation.
Sorted.
General taxation should fund the purely "public interest" programs, like news, documentaries etc. All the entertainment stuff the BBC should be able to raise its own revenue for, either via ads or subscriptions.
Playing devil's advocate, if 80% of taxpayers would prefer to watch Strictly than a documentary about the gothic revival, why is paying for the latter in the "public interest"?
Because individual enjoyment should be a matter for individuals and the private market. Public interest programs are those which have externalities that benefit broader society, such as improving the education of the nation.
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.
Perhaps Strictly encourages people to take up ballroom dancing, with attendant health benefits. It's a public service in its own right.
There must be a hundred more cost efficient ways of improving public health than funding Strictly Come Dancing.
Not on BBC but "Le Tour" will do miracles for bike sales
Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
He was convicted of 3, later reduced to 2 breaches of the Representation of the People Act 1983, something the section calls an "illegal practice".
He had been reappointed to the immigration brief on the shadow front bench team by Ed after his win, somewhat surprisingly as he had been a strong supporter of David. The New Statesman said it was a "bizarre decision" as Woolas had "run one of the most disgraceful election campaigns in recent history". It was indeed. Poor judgement I would say.
With England now out of the World Cup, I have come to the conclusion that the England flags flying from my pubs upstairs windows make it look like an EDL gathering site. How sad.
In other news, on consideration, I think Miliband should probably hammer on Coulson and judgement. The Juncker aspect is tricky, it's difficult to tell what the polling impact will be - there is a premium to be gained from 'standing up to Europe' and even 'being twatted by Europe' - if Cameron is allowed to be seen as poor misunderstood and righteous Britains voice against the Eurocrats, he could well gain support from the Kipper mass and eurosctic undecideds despite losing out on the appointment. He knows this well.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
With England now out of the World Cup, I have come to the conclusion that the England flags flying from my pubs upstairs windows make it look like an EDL gathering site. How sad.
Plus all the usual suspects from the Labour party who were appointed by Ed and have ended up with convictions etc.
What usual suspects Ed appointed have been convicted ?
David is usually very sound on all matters, but the idea that Ed's Shadow Cabinet appointees would end up with any convictions at all is quite absurd.
When people make statements like David L, they should provide names, so others can check whether it is correct or not. All political parties have had their problems with MPs and SPADS.
Woolas was the one I had immediately in mind. I would accept that the others such as McShane and Moran had their appointments before Ed became leader and the spin doctors who resigned were not actually prosecuted.
Phil Woolas was not convicted as far as I am aware. He allowed wrong information about an opponent at the 2010 election to be published and a court ruled that this was against election rules. So Woolas lost his seat, they election was held again. Woolas was not appointed by Ed as far as I aware.
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
He was convicted of 3, later reduced to 2 breaches of the Representation of the People Act 1983, something the section calls an "illegal practice".
He had been reappointed to the immigration brief on the shadow front bench team by Ed after his win, somewhat surprisingly as he had been a strong supporter of David. The New Statesman said it was a "bizarre decision" as Woolas had "run one of the most disgraceful election campaigns in recent history". It was indeed. Poor judgement I would say.
Not a conviction. It was found that illegal practices against electon law had been committed. When people use the word conviction is means that a criminal act would be recorded and be subject to the rehabilitation of offenders act. The illegal practices under election law would not have led to any conviction being noted.
Anyway, the point is that all parties have had their problems and no doubt Labour will use this current problem against Cameron/Tories, the same way as Cameron/Tories would use problems that Labour or Lib Dems had. It is part of the political game. You just have to accept the damage it will cause and try to move on. I don't think it would be wise for Ed and Labour to go overboard on this, given the problems they had with Damian McBride.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
Rather statist to decide which programs "benefit broader society".
I had no idea of the difference between a salsa and a rumba prior to watching strictly, and have been educated as a result. I kid, of course, but you get my point that defining what is beneficial/educational, and what is not, can be a very fuzzy area.
Yes, it is. But we're already implicitly choosing to define what is in the public interest by the BBC's editorial decisions. All I am recommending is making that fuzzy area less fuzzy, and that taxpayers' money is spent in an accountable way. If you don't want the state deciding these things, then privatise the whole damn channel.
I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis. And don't get me started on BBC3.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena.
In the past few years, they've shown the likes of Kimberly Walsh, Rachel Riley, Abby Clancy, Kara Tointon in very revealing outfits.
That does wonders for the nation's wellbeing.
Here's an example.
(it really kicks off in about 50 secs in)
Oh pish and tittle TSE, regardless of pretty girls (of whom there are many more, and far finer in the real world outside of the goggle box), strictly and it's brethren reality shows are the true opium of the masses. Mindless drivel watched by drooling morons who quickly forget that the world, the country and the establishment have let them down. It's why #revolutionnow and #activatepunk will never happen! and the likes of me are left voting Tory to stop the complete meltdown of everything under a Labour government whilst we wait for the nation to wake up and renew itself in a glorious mass movement of hope, change and rebirth.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.
With England now out of the World Cup, I have come to the conclusion that the England flags flying from my pubs upstairs windows make it look like an EDL gathering site. How sad.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.
On topic, I am wary of placing bets on secondhand accounts of opinion polls where we have not seen the questions asked and when we do not know when exactly the poll was taken (Green polling in general has improved in the last couple of months).
Legal arguments heard by Mr Justice Saunders this morning have delayed jury deliberations.
The Judge has restricted the media from reporting the substance of the legal arguments, but there is a high probability of them referring to media coverage of yesterday's verdicts and associated statements made by politicians.
In the circumstances, I think it highly unlikely that PMQs will refer to Coulson.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
Wrong.
George Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor by Michael Howard.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
Wrong.
George Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor by Michael Howard.
That's true, Howard needs to take some responsibility for him as well.
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis. And don't get me started on BBC3.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena"
The problem with reforming the BBC's funding arrangements is how to maintain the non-political bits of Radio 4, which, alas, these days includes most of its comedy output.
I haven't watched live TV of any shade for more than a decade, though I do make use of the IPlayer service for occasional science and history programmes and that sort of viewing can be comfortably funded by a subscription/pay per view service. Nonetheless I still would not want to see the licence fee abolished unless some other equal value for money method can be found to enable the "good" bits of Radio 4 to continue.
The licence fee costs a bit less than three quid a week for which I get to listen to some spiffing programmes. "In Our Time" on Thursday morning is worth £3 on its own, then add in all the other history, science, business programmes, plus some good drama from time to time and the very occasional good bit of political analysis (e.g. on the run-up to Hollande's election Radio 4 put out an excellent programme on who he was, where he had come from what he believed etc.). So for me the licence fee represents terrific value for money.
On an associated note, Jack W suggests the World Service needs to be beefed up. Not so much beefed up as returned to its original values, Mr. W.. I used to listen to it a lot, I don't bother at all now that it has slumped to a fairly bald propaganda station for so-called progressive values.
The betting implication from the Coulson verdict is on Osborne's chances of taking over from Cameron. It is Osborne's judgement that is most at fault because he had recommended Coulson and Osborne had an involvement in the vetting. When there is an election for Cameron's replacement this episode will be brought up by his opponents.
Fortunately George is the most popular UK wide politician.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
Nick Clegg was most popular for about 2 weeks before May 2010. Popularity does not last in the political world.
George Osborne is no Nick Clegg.
I agree that George is not as good as Nick or as well educated or intelligent.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
Wrong.
George Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor by Michael Howard.
That's true, Howard needs to take some responsibility for him as well.
The UK economy is doing so well in comparison with its global competitors that everyone wants to take some responsibility for George's appointment.
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis. And don't get me started on BBC3.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena"
The problem with reforming the BBC's funding arrangements is how to maintain the non-political bits of Radio 4, which, alas, these days includes most of its comedy output.
I haven't watched live TV of any shade for more than a decade, though I do make use of the IPlayer service for occasional science and history programmes and that sort of viewing can be comfortably funded by a subscription/pay per view service. Nonetheless I still would not want to see the licence fee abolished unless some other equal value for money method can be found to enable the "good" bits of Radio 4 to continue.
The licence fee costs a bit less than three quid a week for which I get to listen to some spiffing programmes. "In Our Time" on Thursday morning is worth £3 on its own, then add in all the other history, science, business programmes, plus some good drama from time to time and the very occasional good bit of political analysis (e.g. on the run-up to Hollande's election Radio 4 put out an excellent programme on who he was, where he had come from what he believed etc.). So for me the licence fee represents terrific value for money.
On an associated note, Jack W suggests the World Service needs to be beefed up. Not so much beefed up as returned to its original values, Mr. W.. I used to listen to it a lot, I don't bother at all now that it has slumped to a fairly bald propaganda station for so-called progressive values.
Broadly agree. I hardly ever watch anything on BBC TV although I am now working my way through a box set of Sherlock which was simply brilliant in the early series. I also watch a bit of sport such as the football and the Olympics.
But I would be quite happy to pay £3 a week for R4 and R5 live. I spend far too many hours in the car to do without them. "In our Time" is indeed a gem.
Mr. Eagles, he spent over a decade marauding around Italy, undefeated. Trying to get some work done, so I'm afraid I don't have the time necessary to point out the mountain of wrongness you're busy climbing.
Mr. Eagles, he spent over a decade marauding around Italy, undefeated. Trying to get some work done, so I'm afraid I don't have the time necessary to point out the mountain of wrongness you're busy climbing.
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis.
Then why doesn't it? Why didn't Sky or ITV think of it? In any case, the BBC makes a boatload of cash selling the format to foreign commercial stations.
The BBC has always has entertainment as part of its Reithian brief. More objectionable perhaps are programmes like The Voice which look suspiciously like the BBC's me-too versions of ITV hits.
Mr. Eagles, the Hanno Party lost the war. It's a curious thing to blame the best of Carthage for its defeat. By that logic you should claim Varro won it for Rome.
As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will inevitably have slick answers prepared.
As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will inevitably have slick answers prepared.
Isn't it therefore wise for the LOTO to be unpredictable in his lines of attack?
As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will have slick answers prepared.
Quite. I've not watched it but I predicted a few days back that this site would be all over "Ed missing an open goal". I don't think PMQs is neither here nor there today, the front page of the Daily Mail is perhaps the most narrative forming piece today, and not brilliant for Cameron.
It will all be chip wrappers soon anyway - but like Ed's Sun mishap you don't want to many of these poor narrative pieces... that goes for both Ed & Dave.
As a general observation, it is hard for a LOTO to score when the subject matter is so predictable. The PM (whoever it is) will inevitably have slick answers prepared.
Isn't it therefore wise for the LOTO to be unpredictable in his lines of attack?
@peterjukes: BREAKING; #hackingtrial jury not able to bring in a verdict on Coulson Goodman Counts 2 & 3 - jury discharged: decision about retrial Monday
What were we saying on here yesterday about the qualities needed by leaders? Would you really want to follow a man who cannot even remember the words of a question?
Plant question from own side ? Never seen that trick before !
"Would the prime minister agree that our side's shit smells of roses..." sorry got bored of that ages ago. As did 99% of the rest of the general populace.
Jury discharged by Mr Justice Saunders after reporting it had been unable to reach a majority verdict on the remaining four charges against Goodman and Coulson.
Labour can't land a punch today - Cameron has clearly been preparing for a long time for this day and handled things with confidence. Miliband should have done better - but, yet again, he has failed on the big occasion. That will have been noted.
Cameron is not going to be able to put this fully behind him - but when he is up against such a LOTO, he isn't going to suffer as much as he could have done.
It's all well and good to win the argument over detail in PMQ (snd it's debatable as to whether he did that) but he needs to win the headlines. He should've repeatedly demanded that Cameron resign, with proper anger. It would've rallied the backbenchers and made the news headlines.
Cameron is the one associated with Coulson. Osborne, although he is in reality is not nearly as much in the perception. I don't think it'll be a particular barrier should he go for the top job.
It will be dragged up in the internal Leadership campaign. All a question of judgement.
Comments
So your statement earlier was wrong, as I cannot think of anyone that Ed has appointed who has been convicted.
You could say that this is the problem with Ed. Lack of conviction !
The BBC could perhaps only be directly funded for programs that promote "British values"?
It's a terminology issue.
Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas knew all three statements were untrue, and was therefore guilty of illegal practices under election law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11699888
The Great British bake off, Great British allotment challenge, the Great British Menu, the Great British sewing bee.
He had been reappointed to the immigration brief on the shadow front bench team by Ed after his win, somewhat surprisingly as he had been a strong supporter of David. The New Statesman said it was a "bizarre decision" as Woolas had "run one of the most disgraceful election campaigns in recent history". It was indeed. Poor judgement I would say.
In other news, on consideration, I think Miliband should probably hammer on Coulson and judgement. The Juncker aspect is tricky, it's difficult to tell what the polling impact will be - there is a premium to be gained from 'standing up to Europe' and even 'being twatted by Europe' - if Cameron is allowed to be seen as poor misunderstood and righteous Britains voice against the Eurocrats, he could well gain support from the Kipper mass and eurosctic undecideds despite losing out on the appointment. He knows this well.
In the past few years, they've shown the likes of Kimberly Walsh, Rachel Riley, Abby Clancy, Kara Tointon in very revealing outfits.
That does wonders for the nation's wellbeing.
Here's an example.
(it really kicks off in about 50 secs in)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nO0tVyFds
Anyway, the point is that all parties have had their problems and no doubt Labour will use this current problem against Cameron/Tories, the same way as Cameron/Tories would use problems that Labour or Lib Dems had. It is part of the political game. You just have to accept the damage it will cause and try to move on. I don't think it would be wise for Ed and Labour to go overboard on this, given the problems they had with Damian McBride.
He has the numbers to take a hit.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena.
Or something
The Judge has restricted the media from reporting the substance of the legal arguments, but there is a high probability of them referring to media coverage of yesterday's verdicts and associated statements made by politicians.
In the circumstances, I think it highly unlikely that PMQs will refer to Coulson.
George only got the chancellors job for being Daves mate.
George Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor by Michael Howard.
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis. And don't get me started on BBC3.
If I was in charge I'd retain a rolling news channel, BBC4, Radio 4, cbeebies and CBBC. All produce output which is largely non-commercial, and which I think benefits society. Trouble is, only a very small minority would agree with my list.
Anyway, the point remains that the BBC has drifted so far from it's original purpose they couldn't see it with a telescope. Privatizing Radio 1 & 2, and BBC3, is difficult to argue against if you take the view that a public broadcaster should stay outside of the purely commercial arena"
The problem with reforming the BBC's funding arrangements is how to maintain the non-political bits of Radio 4, which, alas, these days includes most of its comedy output.
I haven't watched live TV of any shade for more than a decade, though I do make use of the IPlayer service for occasional science and history programmes and that sort of viewing can be comfortably funded by a subscription/pay per view service. Nonetheless I still would not want to see the licence fee abolished unless some other equal value for money method can be found to enable the "good" bits of Radio 4 to continue.
The licence fee costs a bit less than three quid a week for which I get to listen to some spiffing programmes. "In Our Time" on Thursday morning is worth £3 on its own, then add in all the other history, science, business programmes, plus some good drama from time to time and the very occasional good bit of political analysis (e.g. on the run-up to Hollande's election Radio 4 put out an excellent programme on who he was, where he had come from what he believed etc.). So for me the licence fee represents terrific value for money.
On an associated note, Jack W suggests the World Service needs to be beefed up. Not so much beefed up as returned to its original values, Mr. W.. I used to listen to it a lot, I don't bother at all now that it has slumped to a fairly bald propaganda station for so-called progressive values.
It's the price he has to pay for his success.
I don't think it'll be a particular barrier should he go for the top job.
The problem with George, is that it isn't him who has to pay for his "success" it's the people who can least afford it.
But I would be quite happy to pay £3 a week for R4 and R5 live. I spend far too many hours in the car to do without them. "In our Time" is indeed a gem.
Disappointing again.
He had a limited opportunity and didn't nail it.
Which is a shame, because I'd quite like being unable to lose at betting. My wallet would certainly be weightier.
A bit like Cannibal.
BREAKING: Miliband to demand an independent public inquiry into why an independent public inquiry didn't say what Miliband wanted. #PMQs
I'm sure he was vetted to within an inch of his life.
Ed's measured tone is self-defeating and his attack is blunt.
The BBC has always has entertainment as part of its Reithian brief. More objectionable perhaps are programmes like The Voice which look suspiciously like the BBC's me-too versions of ITV hits.
Time for the Labour Party to substitute their striker.
Cameron hasn't lost his temper either. Interesting.
twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/481754402492260352/photo/1
I wonder if Miliband apologised fro those photos of him with the Sun.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 1m
Cameron thumped that one into an open goal. #PMQs
Think we're about to find Labour MPs will be more dangerous than Miliband for Cameron over Coulson #pmqs
I always thought Leveson was another appalling waste of money but Cameron may not agree after today!
I'm not saying Cameron has hacked Miliband's phone....but he did uncannily anticipate all the questions. #pmqs
David Roe @DavidRoe92 54s
Ed Miliband takes penalties like Chris Waddle.
It will all be chip wrappers soon anyway - but like Ed's Sun mishap you don't want to many of these poor narrative pieces... that goes for both Ed & Dave.
Oo-err
David Cameron: Scipio Africanus
Ed Miliband = Hannibal
Says it all.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
What were we saying on here yesterday about the qualities needed by leaders? Would you really want to follow a man who cannot even remember the words of a question?
"Would the prime minister agree that our side's shit smells of roses..." sorry got bored of that ages ago. As did 99% of the rest of the general populace.
Then he scores six own goals. The glum faces on the opposition benches says it all.
Now up to CPS whether to go for a retrial.
Cameron is not going to be able to put this fully behind him - but when he is up against such a LOTO, he isn't going to suffer as much as he could have done.
It's all well and good to win the argument over detail in PMQ (snd it's debatable as to whether he did that) but he needs to win the headlines. He should've repeatedly demanded that Cameron resign, with proper anger. It would've rallied the backbenchers and made the news headlines.
He was shite today.
Milliband's a plum.
Amazing for a barrister. Pity the folk she represented.