Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I suspect this will be absurdly cheap television for the BBC.
Would it cost them much to report on the home nations' international youth teams?
But the absurd cheapness of the exercise doesn't explain why the main feature on the BBC home page is all about foreign football. In what way is that servicing this nation's broadcasting needs?
It would cost peanuts... (and to be fair you were going on about the licence fee) assuming they know its taking place. Look, I am disgusted at the relatively poor coverage the BBC gives to rugby league. But as you look at the BBC's front sports page, its littered with UK sports covrage. The one non-UK item that springs out is NZ v Pakistan cricket. Frankly with the best will in the world i cannot see that as being a pandering to Pakistani Immigrants. it would be there if it was Australia v. South Africa. But if you say the BBC is too big too bloated too spendthrift and too prejudiced (in a range of issues) I would tend to sway to lean towards an inclination in that general direction.
I was concerned that the BBC home page had as its main story a report on European club football (it's finally gone now btw). Is there any way this can be justified under its remit?
I was somewhat annoyed the other day when I heard on the BBC R5, several times throughout the day, about an RoI football player not being fit to play for their national team.
Why the hell should our national broadcaster be telling us that?
If it's good for us to learn that, why is it not good to hear about the selection of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricket teams? Or the australian South African and New Zealand rugby union and league selection decisions?
Where does it stop?
And why does it not tell us about the home nations' youth teams in these sports?
To give my take on the thread, I agree scotland will determine if Labour has a majority in May. Currently Labour is on course to gain around 9 LD seats and with a swing of 5.5% from the Tories in Tory marginals, they gain another 68 Tory seats for a total of 77, putting them at the edge of a majority, from which they can afford losing max.9 seats to the SNP without losing it.
Matthew Ford and Rob Goodwin will be interviewed on tonight's Westminster Hour on Radio 4, (which has just started).
Which got me to thinking. Radio 4 has many interesting and informative programs. Presumably this means people listen to them at home.
Here the assumption on the part of programmers is that if you're listening to radio you're in your car. The only radio I have in my house (other than my bedside satellite radio I listen to BBC World Service on) is a little tranny in my bathroom I listen to while shaving.
Interesting. Most people I know listen to the radio in their house just as much as in their car.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I suspect this will be absurdly cheap television for the BBC.
Would it cost them much to report on the home nations' international youth teams?
But the absurd cheapness of the exercise doesn't explain why the main feature on the BBC home page is all about foreign football. In what way is that servicing this nation's broadcasting needs?
It would cost peanuts... (and to be fair you were going on about the licence fee) assuming they know its taking place. Look, I am disgusted at the relatively poor coverage the BBC gives to rugby league. But as you look at the BBC's front sports page, its littered with UK sports covrage. The one non-UK item that springs out is NZ v Pakistan cricket. Frankly with the best will in the world i cannot see that as being a pandering to Pakistani Immigrants. it would be there if it was Australia v. South Africa. But if you say the BBC is too big too bloated too spendthrift and too prejudiced (in a range of issues) I would tend to sway to lean towards an inclination in that general direction.
I was concerned that the BBC home page had as its main story a report on European club football (it's finally gone now btw). Is there any way this can be justified under its remit?
I was somewhat annoyed the other day when I heard on the BBC R5, several times throughout the day, about an RoI football player not being fit to play for their national team.
Why the hell should our national broadcaster be telling us that?
If it's good for us to learn that, why is it not good to hear about the selection of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricket teams? Or the australian South African and New Zealand rugby union and league selection decisions?
Where does it stop?
And why does it not tell us about the home nations' youth teams in these sports?
Boiling down what you are saying, you want the BBC to have a deliberate bias in its reporting. Leaving aside whether sports is important and 'news', which it really isn't.
Until a pollster asks us whether the nation would prefer to have posh Dave or weird Ed as PM, I'll remain sceptical of their results. There's nothing else to vote for next year.
Surbiton I am a rare voter who has switched to the LDs, at least at local elections, now Clegg is leader, I could never have voted for a Kennedy led LDs. Clegg got the LDs into government for the first time in a century, at the end of the day that will be very significant for historians
It's how Clegg and his LD's end, he may have put the LD's in government but history will remember only the public verdict at the next election. It's the ending to their story which always counts, as the inventor of democracy Solon taught the rich and arrogant Lydian king Croesus.
" Croesus had considered himself to be the happiest man alive and Solon had advised him, "Count no man happy until he be dead." The reasoning was that at any minute, fortune might turn on even the happiest man and make his life miserable. It was only after he had lost his kingdom to the Persian king Cyrus, while awaiting execution, that Croesus acknowledged the wisdom of Solon's advice."
So far the end of Clegg and the LD coalition looks grim in historical terms and that is what historians will record, as an example even now 30 years after the 83 election they still regard Foot in negative terms you know.
I'm guessing from my earlier brief reprisal of my argument last night that BNP racists will be voting kipper and from the lack of vitriolic reaction to it, that our resident kippers have realised and accepted that they are now the natural home for the uk's white racists.
For the record again, I still don't think that UKIP is a racist party, nor am I accusing any of the kippers here of being racist.
I would though be interested to know if you're all yet comfortable with that fact. FFS Nick Griffin is now, as far as it matters, a recruiting sergeant for your party. Has Nige yet told him to eff off?
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I suspect this will be absurdly cheap television for the BBC.
Would it cost them much to report on the home nations' international youth teams?
But the absurd cheapness of the exercise doesn't explain why the main feature on the BBC home page is all about foreign football. In what way is that servicing this nation's broadcasting needs?
It would cost peanuts... (and to be fair you were going on about the licence fee) assuming they know its taking place. Look, I am disgusted at the relatively poor coverage the BBC gives to rugby league. But as you look at the BBC's front sports page, its littered with UK sports covrage. The one non-UK item that springs out is NZ v Pakistan cricket. Frankly with the best will in the world i cannot see that as being a pandering to Pakistani Immigrants. it would be there if it was Australia v. South Africa. But if you say the BBC is too big too bloated too spendthrift and too prejudiced (in a range of issues) I would tend to sway to lean towards an inclination in that general direction.
I was concerned that the BBC home page had as its main story a report on European club football (it's finally gone now btw). Is there any way this can be justified under its remit?
I was somewhat annoyed the other day when I heard on the BBC R5, several times throughout the day, about an RoI football player not being fit to play for their national team.
Why the hell should our national broadcaster be telling us that?
If it's good for us to learn that, why is it not good to hear about the selection of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricket teams? Or the australian South African and New Zealand rugby union and league selection decisions?
Where does it stop?
And why does it not tell us about the home nations' youth teams in these sports?
Boiling down what you are saying, you want the BBC to have a deliberate bias in its reporting. Leaving aside whether sports is important and 'news', which it really isn't.
Of course I do. I want them to have a bias towards UK news. In sport they should, obviously, be telling us more about home nations' international sides of all age levels ahead of foreign sports.
Anyone that wants better detail of foreign sports news can easily find it elsewhere.
Can you imagine US channels giving priority to foreign sports results over college football and basketball?'
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
''Last year, net immigration stood at 81,000'' With the Swiss population at 8.2 million then pro rata that is the equivalent of a net migrant flow of 633,000 for the UK. The proposal would have demanded it be reduced to 16,000 (or the equivalent to 125,000 for the UK) So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
(BTW, The UK-equivalent immigration figure for non-EU Norway is 590,000).
Matthew Ford and Rob Goodwin will be interviewed on tonight's Westminster Hour on Radio 4, (which has just started).
Which got me to thinking. Radio 4 has many interesting and informative programs. Presumably this means people listen to them at home.
Here the assumption on the part of programmers is that if you're listening to radio you're in your car. The only radio I have in my house (other than my bedside satellite radio I listen to BBC World Service on) is a little tranny in my bathroom I listen to while shaving.
Interesting. Most people I know listen to the radio in their house just as much as in their car.
Radio here is either top forty, country, or sports talk. Even Atlanta's WCNN is a sports talk station.
The nearest equivalent to Radio 4 is NPR. However the network is only up 6-10am and 4-6pm wekdays for news programming. Otherwise it's mainly classical music. They do have saturday morning talk programming and an opera on Saturday afternoons, followed by the magnificent Prairie Home Companion live from 6-8pm. They also still broadcast My Word with Frank Muir. Yes, I know he is.
When Prairie Home Companion was in Atlanta a few years back I got to go and see it live.
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
Nope.
Today's referendum was a bit of Green lunacy re world population control. It included the Swiss paying large amounts for international family planning services. Being sensible the Swiss binned it.
The Referendum on mandatory Swiss(only) immigration control was passed in Feb 2014.
Its now part of the the Swiss Constitution and the Swiss gov is implementing it.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I suspect this will be absurdly cheap television for the BBC.
Would it cost them much to report on the home nations' international youth teams?
It would cost peanuts... (and to be fair you were going on about the licence fee) assuming they know its taking place. Look, I am disgusted at the relatively poor coverage the BBC gives to rugby league. But as you look at the BBC's front sports page, its littered with UK sports covrage. The one non-UK item that springs out is NZ v Pakistan cricket. Frankly with the best will in the world i cannot see that as being a pandering to Pakistani Immigrants. it would be there if it was Australia v. South Africa. But if you say the BBC is too big too bloated too spendthrift and too prejudiced (in a range of issues) I would tend to sway to lean towards an inclination in that general direction.
I was concerned that the BBC home page had as its main story a report on European club football (it's finally gone now btw). Is there any way this can be justified under its remit?
I was somewhat annoyed the other day when I heard on the BBC R5, several times throughout the day, about an RoI football player not being fit to play for their national team.
Why the hell should our national broadcaster be telling us that?
If it's good for us to learn that, why is it not good to hear about the selection of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricket teams? Or the australian South African and New Zealand rugby union and league selection decisions?
Where does it stop?
And why does it not tell us about the home nations' youth teams in these sports?
Boiling down what you are saying, you want the BBC to have a deliberate bias in its reporting. Leaving aside whether sports is important and 'news', which it really isn't.
Of course I do. I want them to have a bias towards UK news. In sport they should, obviously, be telling us more about home nations' international sides of all age levels ahead of foreign sports.
Anyone that wants better detail of foreign sports news can easily find it elsewhere.
Can you imagine US channels giving priority to foreign sports results over college football and basketball?'
It's not an exact comparison - in the BBC case the Jonathan Foreigner folks are playing the same sports as the UK folks. Here they are not.
Speedy Foot never got Labour into government did he, Clegg is the only Liberal leader since Lloyd George to achieve that feat, getting lots of protest votes without any power is all well and good but at the end of the day achieves nothing. If the Tories move right after Cameron and Labour stays relatively left the need for a centre party will arise again.
As for Solon and Croesus, there is not really much point being happy when you are dead is there, the final years maybe!
Until a pollster asks us whether the nation would prefer to have posh Dave or weird Ed as PM, I'll remain sceptical of their results. There's nothing else to vote for next year.
You should watch the episode of the documentary "Labour the wilderness years:enter the rose", which will teach you that having a polished image means nothing if you have no product to sell. What has posh Cameron have to sell to the public apart from his boring Long Term Economic Plan (which no one knows what it is) and his outUKIP, UKIP approach?
So far Labour have a wider collection of policies which the public easily understand and like, ranging from railway part-nationalization to capping utility bills to reforming taxation on private education.
I've always felt the charm of Radio 4 was that it managed to intrigue me in things I had never previously given a thought, say the challenges of farmers when workers left for towns during the industrial revolution or common hobbies of pre-Victorian women.
But I must admit I never listen to spoken radio at home. I'd have to listen to it, and there's too much to do (I don't have a TV either, for the same reason, though I'll catch up with stuff at odd moments on iPlayer - quite a common solution among young people in the UK). In the car, I've nothing else to do. Not sure if that's the same reason as in the US. Do Americans still watch a lot of live TV?
Flightpath I am not sure on that, you may be right, but no doubt chancellors have raided revenues from NI when they needed to
NI is no longer NI. It is part of general taxation.
No.
And I am not sure it is possible to 'raid' NI. In respect of pensions its used to make the payments. I have a memory of reading that the balancing fund was increased a little while ago. Clearly the NI does not pay for the NHS. Did it ever? And of course no country pays for all their NHS costs out of purely insurance payments. Myself I think that if unemployment goes up then NI should go up to pay and when it falls it should come down.
Speedy Foot never got Labour into government did he, Clegg is the only Liberal leader since Lloyd George to achieve that feat, getting lots of protest votes without any power is all well and good but at the end of the day achieves nothing. If the Tories move right after Cameron and Labour stays relatively left the need for a centre party will arise again.
As for Solon and Croesus, there is not really much point being happy when you are dead is there, the final years maybe!
Who cares if Clegg got a government limo when the result can be LD 6% in May? . You are saying that anyone who has entered government is judged by history kindly, however that is not the case, history will judge you as to what you have left behind. If you are the government and you have been judged by the public to be a massive failure and a disappointment so large as to receive a crushing defeat at the next election, history will record only the result (TSE is reminding us constantly about Hannibal).
In modern history I need to only utter one name to prove that how you end is what matters, G.W.Bush. And we still sing about Waterloo.
GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway... It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
Agreed. We will have a PR result with FPTP. The biggest party to govern as a minority?
Election again in October or in one year?
My personal prediction is similar: Labour and Conservatives on broadly similar seat numbers of around 285, with each of LD and SNP holding too few seats to provide a stable majority (if one at all) to either major party alone. Even combining UKIP and DUP numbers with a putative Tory/LD combination is providing gross instability at best. I really can't see a Lab/LD/SNP coalition functioning long-term in any meaningful way either.
On those sorts of numbers, can there even be a minority government of either colour with enough votes to pass a Queen's Speech? Another GE to follow within months, chaos in between, internal party strife likely to overwhelm all three main parties, probably Tories most of all. Intense pressure on all the party leaders to resign, though I suspect at least Milliband will hang on. Likely dreadful for sterling and the markets in general, as suggested already. I'm planning a bit to mitigate against this possibility, but there are real limits to what can reasonably be done without going overboard.
Plus, the real problem will be what happens if the second election is as gridlocked as the first!
I really hope I'm wrong about this prediction. Bizarrely, I'd even prefer a small Milliband majority government to the above scenario, which is really saying something... at least that's something I can somewhat proof my affairs against, rather than complete chaos undermining the markets for months on end.
It's an unpopular view, I think, but as a broadly libertarian person I've found the Coalition to be a generally benign entity with each part balancing the other's excesses reasonably well. I can quibble about the detail on many policies from both a liberal social and liberal economic perspective, but overall - and in the absence of there being a truly liberal party with a chance of government - it's suited me. I'd rather like it if both parties can do the same again, but I don't see the numbers working out. Plus enough of them hate each other that if the Tories recover enough to come fairly close again, I think both sides would far prefer a minority Tory government for year or so instead.
Until a pollster asks us whether the nation would prefer to have posh Dave or weird Ed as PM, I'll remain sceptical of their results. There's nothing else to vote for next year.
You should watch the episode of the documentary "Labour the wilderness years:enter the rose", which will teach you that having a polished image means nothing if you have no product to sell. What has posh Cameron have to sell to the public apart from his boring Long Term Economic Plan (which no one knows what it is) and his outUKIP, UKIP approach?
So far Labour have a wider collection of policies which the public easily understand and like, ranging from railway part-nationalization to capping utility bills to reforming taxation on private education.
Given Ed is having his umpteenth relaunch are you sure ANY of those policies are still current?
Until a pollster asks us whether the nation would prefer to have posh Dave or weird Ed as PM, I'll remain sceptical of their results. There's nothing else to vote for next year.
You should watch the episode of the documentary "Labour the wilderness years:enter the rose", which will teach you that having a polished image means nothing if you have no product to sell. What has posh Cameron have to sell to the public apart from his boring Long Term Economic Plan (which no one knows what it is) and his outUKIP, UKIP approach?
So far Labour have a wider collection of policies which the public easily understand and like, ranging from railway part-nationalization to capping utility bills to reforming taxation on private education.
Those few policies of weird Ed's you've mentioned can easily be framed differently, and will be
Capping utility bills? Fixing prices far higher than they would have been otherwise (it's happened already)
Reforming taxation on private education? Putting far more pressure on the already overburdened state education system
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
Nope.
Today's referendum was a bit of Green lunacy re world population control. It included the Swiss paying large amounts for international family planning services. Being sensible the Swiss binned it.
The Referendum on mandatory Swiss(only) immigration control was passed in Feb 2014.
Its now part of the the Swiss Constitution and the Swiss gov is implementing it.
Time to delurk Will be classed as PB Tory Born raised Edinburgh...now in Yorkshire Psychiatrist by trade...some PBers pique my professional interest!
SNP are and will remain strong in NE Scotland a No area.Do not think anyone will have them losing any of their current seats. Bar Kennedy and Orkney SNP likely to sweep all LD Scottish seats. SNP likely to be ahead in votes at GE but not by current margin...Murphy is competent first rank politician and will rally SLAB to a modest extent. SNP and SLAB will have similar seat numbers. Tories have shot at couple of gains in Scotland eg Borders,Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh West.
Anyone too rude to me liable to be sectioned!
Greetings!
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
I skimmed that as "Norman Lambs mental health problems" and did a double-take! Was thinking of Norman Baker, of course.
Play nicely Tories, only UKIP can stop Labour in Thurrock
"Are things turning nasty in Thurrock?
Politics is getting increasingly ugly. One example is a Tory leaflet in Thurrock, Essex, that calls Tim Aker, Ukip’s candidate there, ‘Timür Aker’ in what, to me, seems a clear attempt to remind voters of his Turkish roots.
This appears to be a cheap tactic, seeing as Aker is known by all – and refers to himself – as Tim. It seems clear what these Tories were trying to do, and it is worthy of nothing but contempt. The Tories won’t beat Ukip – locally or nationally – by diving headfirst into the gutter. "
Until a pollster asks us whether the nation would prefer to have posh Dave or weird Ed as PM, I'll remain sceptical of their results. There's nothing else to vote for next year.
You should watch the episode of the documentary "Labour the wilderness years:enter the rose", which will teach you that having a polished image means nothing if you have no product to sell. What has posh Cameron have to sell to the public apart from his boring Long Term Economic Plan (which no one knows what it is) and his outUKIP, UKIP approach?
So far Labour have a wider collection of policies which the public easily understand and like, ranging from railway part-nationalization to capping utility bills to reforming taxation on private education.
Those few policies of weird Ed's you've mentioned can easily be framed differently, and will be
Capping utility bills? Fixing prices far higher than they would have been otherwise (it's happened already)
Reforming taxation on private education? Putting far more pressure on the already overburdened state education system
OK lets test you, as a praetorian Tory you should know what the Long Term Economic Plan is. So what is it then, in specific measures and policies which the public easily understands?
It's not an exact comparison - in the BBC case the Jonathan Foreigner folks are playing the same sports as the UK folks. Here they are not.
You're right there, but neither does the US have a broadcaster like the BBC which ought to (probably by its rules) be favouring its national teams.
I think you can make an excellent case that the UK no longer needs a broadcaster like the BBC either. There are enough national networks, local radio, news outlets etc that the BBC provides unfair competition. At the very least the license fee should be abolished and they shuld carry advertising just like everyone else.
So the Tories in Thurrock are making a big play of the UKIP candidates Turkish roots... and the Tory MP spends her evenings watching/saluting Jim Davidson... can you imagine the faux outrage on here if the roles were reversed?
Jackie Doyle-Price @JackieDP · Nov 29 Great show by @JimDOfficial no thanks to the Dartford crossing. A crusader against political correctness, I salute you
It's not an exact comparison - in the BBC case the Jonathan Foreigner folks are playing the same sports as the UK folks. Here they are not.
You're right there, but neither does the US have a broadcaster like the BBC which ought to (probably by its rules) be favouring its national teams.
I think you can make an excellent case that the UK no longer needs a broadcaster like the BBC either. There are enough national networks, local radio, news outlets etc that the BBC provides unfair competition. At the very least the license fee should be abolished and they shuld carry advertising just like everyone else.
But of course I went native many years ago
I can't disagree with one word of that.
Except that I love TMS too much to contemplate the idea!
Play nicely Tories, only UKIP can stop Labour in Thurrock
"Are things turning nasty in Thurrock?
Politics is getting increasingly ugly. One example is a Tory leaflet in Thurrock, Essex, that calls Tim Aker, Ukip’s candidate there, ‘Timür Aker’ in what, to me, seems a clear attempt to remind voters of his Turkish roots.
This appears to be a cheap tactic, seeing as Aker is known by all – and refers to himself – as Tim. It seems clear what these Tories were trying to do, and it is worthy of nothing but contempt. The Tories won’t beat Ukip – locally or nationally – by diving headfirst into the gutter. "
The bit that Cameron failed again on immigration is more important than the Tories reminding Labour voters to vote UKIP in Thurrock:
"BUT inside Number 10 there is recognition that the immigration issue has been mishandled in recent weeks. Part of the problem was that the Tory leadership falsely raised the hopes of hardline Eurosceptic backbenchers that Cameron was going to challenge the whole principle of EU free movement. But as one senior figure explains: ‘The more you looked at a cap, the more you realised it was not easy to deliver.’ And for all the finger-jabbing, the Tory leadership had no stomach for a full-on confrontation with the rest of the EU. George Osborne feared that doing this would alienate business at home as well as allies abroad."
TimB I would prefer the licence fee be retained to fund key arts and cultural programmes, documentaries and sports' and national events, but the revenue be distributed amongst different channels and not just the BBC
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
Nope.
Today's referendum was a bit of Green lunacy re world population control. It included the Swiss paying large amounts for international family planning services. Being sensible the Swiss binned it.
The Referendum on mandatory Swiss(only) immigration control was passed in Feb 2014.
Its now part of the the Swiss Constitution and the Swiss gov is implementing it.
I think you will find the other proposal was for 10% of Switzerland's overseas aid budget to be spent on family-planning projects in developing countries. Not extra money.
The earlier referendum, which requires Switzerland to have annual quotas for immigrants, does not take effect immediately but requires the Swiss government to implement a quota system within three years. Given that it would break other international agreements it presents a difficulty for them and the Swiss are currently being excluded from EU scientific projects. Good luck to them - its their affair. Their immigration relative to ours is what it is.
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
Nope.
Today's referendum was a bit of Green lunacy re world population control. It included the Swiss paying large amounts for international family planning services. Being sensible the Swiss binned it.
The Referendum on mandatory Swiss(only) immigration control was passed in Feb 2014.
Its now part of the the Swiss Constitution and the Swiss gov is implementing it.
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
Nope.
Today's referendum was a bit of Green lunacy re world population control. It included the Swiss paying large amounts for international family planning services. Being sensible the Swiss binned it.
The Referendum on mandatory Swiss(only) immigration control was passed in Feb 2014.
Its now part of the the Swiss Constitution and the Swiss gov is implementing it.
So far as I can see, no developed country seems to be able to control immigration, which is why I am sceptical that the kippers can. Even the visa changes for Non-EU citizens to require funds before bringing in spouses, repatriate students and restrict skilled professionals like doctors coming in have still permitted a net influx of 168 000 or so.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Speedy Except on present polling there is every possibility the LDs will again hold the balance of power next year even if they lose half their seats, so Clegg will again wield more power than Kennedy ever achieved
OK lets test you, as a praetorian Tory you should know what the Long Term Economic Plan is. So what is it then, in specific measures and policies which the public easily understands?
That's a very easy question to answer for someone like me who's not a "praetorian Tory"; I just vote Conservative as the least-worst option from the veritable rogues gallery of political parties that we have. Lacking any wider game to play, I don't mind if this answer creates hostages to fortune for political attack/exploitation, or if others feel differently:
The ""Long Term Economic Plan" is quite clearly an overall focus on trying to drive down the structural deficit through gradual, incremental and continuous public sector spending restraint, while cutting private sector taxes wherever possible as and when economic growth allows, to permit further transfer of drivers of wealth from the public to private sector, hopefully providing a more stable base for future growth, as well as on a political level reducing the size of the potential client base of their opposition.
The detail should depend on the exact economic circumstances at the time of each review (ie each Budget/Autumn Statement), as would be expected. I think it's silly for any politician/party (or economist!) to claim to know exactly what the economy will be like more than about 6-12 months in advance. Much better to have an idea of the general direction of travel, and to know the priorities to develop when the opportunity arises.
You may well have a different political/economic perspective on the desirability/effectiveness of this vision, but of all things to criticise the Conservatives on, lacking an obvious preferred direction of economic travel is not one of things I'd choose.
Time to delurk Will be classed as PB Tory Born raised Edinburgh...now in Yorkshire Psychiatrist by trade...some PBers pique my professional interest!
SNP are and will remain strong in NE Scotland a No area.Do not think anyone will have them losing any of their current seats. Bar Kennedy and Orkney SNP likely to sweep all LD Scottish seats. SNP likely to be ahead in votes at GE but not by current margin...Murphy is competent first rank politician and will rally SLAB to a modest extent. SNP and SLAB will have similar seat numbers. Tories have shot at couple of gains in Scotland eg Borders,Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh West.
Anyone too rude to me liable to be sectioned!
Greetings!
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
I skimmed that as "Norman Lambs mental health problems" and did a double-take! Was thinking of Norman Baker, of course.
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
Nope.
Today's referendum was a bit of Green lunacy re world population control. It included the Swiss paying large amounts for international family planning services. Being sensible the Swiss binned it.
The Referendum on mandatory Swiss(only) immigration control was passed in Feb 2014.
Its now part of the the Swiss Constitution and the Swiss gov is implementing it.
.. the Swiss government to implement a quota system within three years. Given that it would break other international agreements it presents a difficulty for them ..
A quota system already exists. Negotiated with the EU but due to expire. One thing this Ref does is force its indefinite continuation. Can't see the EU elites cutting up too rough. Might limit their opportunities to pop over and roll around in their money.
Speedy Except on present polling there is every possibility the LDs will again hold the balance of power next year even if they lose half their seats, so Clegg will again wield more power than Kennedy ever achieved
Not really, on present constituency polling the LD will have around 28 seats, not enough for a coalition with the Tories, or for a working coalition with Labour without the SNP.
And history will still judge Clegg as badly as the public verdict, the only think that people will remember about Clegg in 30, 50 or 100 years time will be pretty much nothing apart from leading his party over the cliff, after all what has Clegg ever achieved in power apart from being in it?
You see you are focusing on power for power's sake without knowing what to do with it.
I've always felt the charm of Radio 4 was that it managed to intrigue me in things I had never previously given a thought, say the challenges of farmers when workers left for towns during the industrial revolution or common hobbies of pre-Victorian women.
But I must admit I never listen to spoken radio at home. I'd have to listen to it, and there's too much to do (I don't have a TV either, for the same reason, though I'll catch up with stuff at odd moments on iPlayer - quite a common solution among young people in the UK). In the car, I've nothing else to do. Not sure if that's the same reason as in the US. Do Americans still watch a lot of live TV?
Over the last decade a phenomenon has occurred which the advertisers are aware of and dislike intensely.
I never watch a TV show 'live'. I dvr it and watch later, so-called timeshifting. For example last Monday was the first of a two part finale to the season of 'Sleepy Hollow'. I will wait until tomorrow and watch both parts at the same time, fast forwarding through the commercials.
Everyone has a dvr these days.
The one exception is sports. The major sports - football, baseball, basketball, hockey - are shown live. This has got the advertisers attention. 'Match of the Day' wouldn't work here. Over the last 12-18 months there has been a plethora of new sports networks.
The premier sports package has to be DirecTV and its exclusive NFL Sunday Ticket. You can watch any and all of the NFL Sunday games (except the NBC Sunday Night game which is available to everyone) live. There is even -and this has to be the best idea ever - the Red Zone Channel, which takes you to any game where it looks like a team is about to score. They often have 2 and 3 teams on the screen at once. It's like a real time highlight reel. The whole package (including watching the games on your phone or tablet) costs $300 per year and is worth every penny. I'm watching it now. They also have a Fantasy Zone Channel for fantasy football fans of which I am not one.
The other cable companies were losing so many subscribers to DirecTV that they complained to the NFL, so the NFL now provides a different Red Zone Channel for non-DirecTV subscribers.
The DirecTV Red Zone Channel doesn't have commercial breaks.
OK lets test you, as a praetorian Tory you should know what the Long Term Economic Plan is. So what is it then, in specific measures and policies which the public easily understands?
That's a very easy question to answer for someone like me who's not a "praetorian Tory"; I just vote Conservative as the least-worst option from the veritable rogues gallery of political parties that we have. Lacking any wider game to play, I don't mind if this answer creates hostages to fortune for political attack/exploitation, or if others feel differently:
The ""Long Term Economic Plan" is quite clearly an overall focus on trying to drive down the structural deficit through gradual, incremental and continuous public sector spending restraint, while cutting private sector taxes wherever possible as and when economic growth allows, to permit further transfer of drivers of wealth from the public to private sector, hopefully providing a more stable base for future growth, as well as on a political level reducing the size of the potential client base of their opposition.
The detail should depend on the exact economic circumstances at the time of each review (ie each Budget/Autumn Statement), as would be expected. I think it's silly for any politician/party (or economist!) to claim to know exactly what the economy will be like more than about 6-12 months in advance. Much better to have an idea of the general direction of travel, and to know the priorities to develop when the opportunity arises.
You may well have a different political/economic perspective on the desirability/effectiveness of this vision, but of all things to criticise the Conservatives on, lacking an obvious preferred direction of economic travel is not one of things I'd choose.
Try to explain that to someone without forgetting the first sentence, Sir Humphrey (marketing lesson no.1)
Or long story short: You don't know either what it is and neither anyone who read your post.
TimB I would prefer the licence fee be retained to fund key arts and cultural programmes, documentaries and sports' and national events, but the revenue be distributed amongst different channels and not just the BBC
PBS covers arts and cultural programming very well, and even carries high school football. Sports coverage here is vastly superior to the coverage they get in the UK. Premier League coverage here - every game is shown over the week - is better than in the UK. How crazy is that?
I don't know what 'national events' are but given we have at least 4 24/7 news networks, they are covered more than adequately.
The taxpayer shouldn't be paying to get F1 or premier league TV coverage. That's just wrong.
For years PBS was known as the Petroleum Broadcasting Service because of the preponderence of sponsorship by oil companies. Why couldn't Exxon Mobil sponsor Wagner's Ring on BBC2 for example?
Speedy Wrong on both counts even at the lowest end of the LD total, just under 30 seats, they could still be ahead of the SNP even at the highest end of their total and UKIP and the Greens combined are still likely to have less than 10 seats.
Clegg has helped restore the economy to the fastest growing in the G7, if he delivers a surplus in 2018 and continues with the welfare, education reforms etc not to mention taking the lowest earners out of tax he will be a far more significant historical figure than Charles Kennedy who achieved what with his leadership? Opposition to a war which went ahead anyway and a few more protest votes!
TimB I would prefer the licence fee be retained to fund key arts and cultural programmes, documentaries and sports' and national events, but the revenue be distributed amongst different channels and not just the BBC
That sort of happens, in that the BBC is required to farm out quite a lot of its programmes to independent providers, so they're just using the BBC channel to reach a national audience. That seems to make sense, in the same way that there's a case (not one I favour, but arguable) for having a state railway network but private train companies running on it, rather than lots of private railway networks.
Not having advertising on radio is a huge plus (as illustrated by the way even ad-habituated Americans use fast forward to avoid it).
OK lets test you, as a praetorian Tory you should know what the Long Term Economic Plan is. So what is it then, in specific measures and policies which the public easily understands?
The "Long Term Economic Plan" is quite clearly an overall focus on trying to drive down the structural deficit through gradual, incremental and continuous public sector spending restraint, while cutting private sector taxes wherever possible as and when economic growth allows, to permit further transfer of drivers of wealth from the public to private sector, hopefully providing a more stable base for future growth, as well as on a political level reducing the size of the potential client base of their opposition.
Try to explain that to someone without forgetting the first sentence, Sir Humphrey (marketing lesson no.1)
Or long story short: You don't know either what it is.
You're not the first person to compare me to the legendary Sir H. I rather take it as compliment; he's one of my favourite sitcom characters. In my more reflective moments, I rather worry that I've actually more in common with Bernard and with Hacker, combining a tendency for obfuscating verbosity with one for purple prose.
But to be honest, I don't really think there's anything particularly complex about the highlighted bit that I've left in my nested quote, which is the real core of the answer.
I fully accept it's an exceptionally difficult sell to distill down into a marketable soundbite. This is is precisely why political discourse is so dreadful, why we have stupid catchphrases instead of explaining things properly, and why I would never countenance becoming a politician, joining a political party or campaigning.
I think it rots the head of anyone who does, to the point of their actually believing the tripe they incessantly spout. I once thought about trying to be an MP and then sobered up. Terrible job, and even if you somehow become PM, you're still hamstrung as to what you can actually do. Plus, crap salary given the nature/responsibility of the job and your only possible endpoint is abject failure, even if posterity is later kind to you. And in the meantime, full exposure to the public gaze. Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
It's all a terrible way to have to run a country; shame it's the only reasonably fair option. That's where Sir Humphrey and I differ, I suppose. He'd be quite happy running it himself, as a dictatorship. I'm merely happy to figure out enough about it all to protect myself from the worst of whichever party is in power.
Speedy Wrong on both counts even at the lowest end of the LD total, just under 30 seats, they could still be ahead of the SNP even at the highest end of their total and UKIP and the Greens combined are still likely to have less than 10 seats.
Clegg has helped restore the economy to the fastest growing in the G7, if he delivers a surplus in 2018 and continues with the welfare, education reforms etc not to mention taking the lowest earners out of tax he will be a far more significant historical figure than Charles Kennedy who achieved what with his leadership? Opposition to a war which went ahead anyway and a few more protest votes!
Lord A's constituency polls point to 26 seats for the LD's in england and wales, and that is with Q2 of his polls (if you're a LD don't look at Q1, it's that ghastly).
"Clegg has helped restore the economy to the fastest growing in the G7" Pathetic for a Tory, what happened to Tory boy wonder Osborne and supreme leader Cameron, or they were simply minions in front of the vast power of deputy PM Nick Clegg?
Clegg has done nothing, leaves behind nothing, and will be remembered for nothing.
TimB I would prefer the licence fee be retained to fund key arts and cultural programmes, documentaries and sports' and national events, but the revenue be distributed amongst different channels and not just the BBC
That sort of happens, in that the BBC is required to farm out quite a lot of its programmes to independent providers, so they're just using the BBC channel to reach a national audience. That seems to make sense, in the same way that there's a case (not one I favour, but arguable) for having a state railway network but private train companies running on it, rather than lots of private railway networks.
What it has ensured is that the number of Black people working in TV has fallen over the past 10 years, despite their percentage of the population increasing.
[snip] Over the last decade a phenomenon has occurred which the advertisers are aware of and dislike intensely.
I never watch a TV show 'live'. I dvr it and watch later, so-called timeshifting. For example last Monday was the first of a two part finale to the season of 'Sleepy Hollow'. I will wait until tomorrow and watch both parts at the same time, fast forwarding through the commercials.
Everyone has a dvr these days.
The one exception is sports. The major sports - football, baseball, basketball, hockey - are shown live. This has got the advertisers attention. 'Match of the Day' wouldn't work here. Over the last 12-18 months there has been a plethora of new sports networks.[/snip]
Agree with all of that. Personally we go further - for series with a distinct storyline (rather than a running theme) we'll try to wait until the season has finished and then watch the whole lot in a weekend or at most a week. And there won't be adverts in any of them. We'll only be subliminally absorbing the product placement
In your specific example I'm really looking forward to getting all of Sleepy Hollow in one go and watching it beginning to end. Haven't seen any of it yet.
The only television watched here also is, as you say, live sports. Plenty of targeted advertising to ignore in that; especially in the commercial breaks during televised bullfighting from the Spanish satellite. And watching rolling news when there's a need for some background noise.
Whatever Labour gets in Scotland, it's bound to be more than what they're polling right now. We're talking about polling that's still in the aftermath of the referendum, before the general election is really at the front of the agenda, and in a situation where Scottish Labour don't have a leader.
Speedy 26 seats could well be more than enough to hold the balance of power, and as OGH has pointed out they are doing better in some Tory LD seats with a LD incumbent than national polls suggest. Cameron and Osborne would not be in power without Clegg's backing, he can claim as much credit for the government's successes as they can
TimB I would prefer the licence fee be retained to fund key arts and cultural programmes, documentaries and sports' and national events, but the revenue be distributed amongst different channels and not just the BBC
That sort of happens, in that the BBC is required to farm out quite a lot of its programmes to independent providers, so they're just using the BBC channel to reach a national audience. That seems to make sense, in the same way that there's a case (not one I favour, but arguable) for having a state railway network but private train companies running on it, rather than lots of private railway networks.
Not having advertising on radio is a huge plus (as illustrated by the way even ad-habituated Americans use fast forward to avoid it).
I am a floor director for my local PBS station during TV fundraising campaigns. There are few things as exhilarating as live TV. The PBS model may be of interest. The state (not the feds) provides funding for the studios and equipment so the company can broadcast. This means PBS studios are always better equipped than other local stations which really pisses them off.
The quid pro quo is that PBS broadcasts lots of quality kids programming. The great facilities also means they can rent them out - for example CNN uses the PBS studios in Atlanta to record programming, a useful source of revenue. During state elections - governor etc - the debates are held at the PBS studios.
Programming is paid for by the fundrasing model. During fund raisers - which typically feature special programming or special guests such as Downton Abbey stars - great attention is paid to who pledges how much during which program. In other words PBS viewers literally get what they pay for.
TimB I would prefer the licence fee be retained to fund key arts and cultural programmes, documentaries and sports' and national events, but the revenue be distributed amongst different channels and not just the BBC
That sort of happens, in that the BBC is required to farm out quite a lot of its programmes to independent providers, so they're just using the BBC channel to reach a national audience. That seems to make sense, in the same way that there's a case (not one I favour, but arguable) for having a state railway network but private train companies running on it, rather than lots of private railway networks.
What it has ensured is that the number of Black people working in TV has fallen over the past 10 years, despite their percentage of the population increasing.
I assume that lefty hand-wringer has done a headcount and published the numbers in the Guardian? It's the sort of statistic the Independent would have gone big on too if it still existed.
I think Labour is vulnerable in Scottish seats where there are three and sometimes four parties in contention. Many of these are middle class urban or suburban seats. Eastwood would be a good example. Five of the six seats in Edinburgh for example are vulnerable to the SNP on vote shares that might be as low as 30%, even though Edinburgh has never been an SNP city.
Couldn't Jim Murphy get a list MSP to resign? In which case, Labour get to choose the replacement, ie Jim Murphy
Radio 4 is the reason I support the BBC licence fee, although BBC4 is also good value IMO. I used to miss Radio 4 a lot when abroad. That problem has of course been solved now by iPlayer radio which seems to work anywhere.
Speedy 26 seats could well be more than enough to hold the balance of power, and as OGH has pointed out they are doing better in some Tory LD seats with a LD incumbent than national polls suggest. Cameron and Osborne would not be in power without Clegg's backing, he can claim as much credit for the government's successes as they can
26 seats is not enough for a working majority even if the Tories remain at 306 seats and those 26 is after the incumbency factor is taken into account by Lord A.
"he can claim as much credit for the government's successes as they can" Is that why he has gone from 24% to 6% while the Tories have gone from 36% to only 31%?
Clegg has done nothing, leaves behind nothing, and will be remembered for nothing.
Always a new bogie man who can be blamed for all the ills of the country. Who was it last election? And who next?
Every election has a central theme as a bogie man: 1979 Unions 1983 Labour 1987 Loony Left 1992 Taxes 1997 Tories 2001 Euro 2005 Terrorists 2010 Deficits
@Speedy Bang on about one theme that captures the zeitgeist, and pretend the other problems are unimportant? It seems a good way to win elections, utter pants for solving anything.
Well I've given one hour to JonnyJimmy to explain in simple and plain language what is the Long Term Economic Plan in specific policies and measures which the public can understand, I have received no answer and time's up.
And that is the government's biggest problem, they can't articulate what they are doing and what they are going to do, perhaps they don't even know.
[snip] Over the last decade a phenomenon has occurred which the advertisers are aware of and dislike intensely.
I never watch a TV show 'live'. I dvr it and watch later, so-called timeshifting. For example last Monday was the first of a two part finale to the season of 'Sleepy Hollow'. I will wait until tomorrow and watch both parts at the same time, fast forwarding through the commercials.
Everyone has a dvr these days.
The one exception is sports. The major sports - football, baseball, basketball, hockey - are shown live. This has got the advertisers attention. 'Match of the Day' wouldn't work here. Over the last 12-18 months there has been a plethora of new sports networks.[/snip]
Agree with all of that. Personally we go further - for series with a distinct storyline (rather than a running theme) we'll try to wait until the season has finished and then watch the whole lot in a weekend or at most a week. And there won't be adverts in any of them. We'll only be subliminally absorbing the product placement
In your specific example I'm really looking forward to getting all of Sleepy Hollow in one go and watching it beginning to end. Haven't seen any of it yet.
The only television watched here also is, as you say, live sports. Plenty of targeted advertising to ignore in that; especially in the commercial breaks during televised bullfighting from the Spanish satellite. And watching rolling news when there's a need for some background noise.
You'll have a ways to go - Sleepy Hollow is finihing its second season.
Bullfighting - as a kid I lived in Tenerife for 7 years. I would go to bullfighting in the old ring in Santa Cruz with my dad. What always made me laugh was that about 10 minutes after the poor animal's carcass was dragged from the ring, a blackboard would be raised with a 3 figure number. It was the price in pesetas for a kilo of the bull's meat.
The last time I was at a bullfight was 10 years ago, while staying at Ronda, at a place called Moron (accent on the last syllable!). It was a brand new concrete brutal ring, paid for by the EU. The skill of the matadors was superb - one got 2 ears and a tail - but it was like sitting in a bus station.
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
''Last year, net immigration stood at 81,000'' With the Swiss population at 8.2 million then pro rata that is the equivalent of a net migrant flow of 633,000 for the UK. The proposal would have demanded it be reduced to 16,000 (or the equivalent to 125,000 for the UK) So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
(BTW, The UK-equivalent immigration figure for non-EU Norway is 590,000).
I definitely fall into the camp of those who've massively reduced their exposure to British live TV, barring major sporting events. There just isn't anything that really interests me any more. In fact, I've moved away from most domestic broadcaster catch up services too, barring the occasional BBC4 documentary that catches my eye (even those are getting scarcer over the past year or so). There are perhaps 1-2 full series per year that I watch from domestic broadcasters, at most.
I do actually watch quite a lot of TV though: it's just that it's streamed from other sites and can be some fairly obscure foreign series, and well as independent internet content.
Mind you, the license fee is very good value, but I do wish it was a subscription model instead of a mandatory fee. It just strikes me as weird that something as frivolous as television is effectively a state product. I'd consider £200-250 total fair for just the BBC website (inc. iPlayer), BBC4 and the sporting events, and would pay that no problem if that was the balancing required to manage the lower numbers willing to pay for a voluntary subscription service instead of a state-funded broadcaster. I think a lot of people would, too.
But can you imagine the grumbling!? Arguments over austerity or Scottish independence would pale by comparison...
Speedy The Tories are also likely to gain some LD seats, so lost LD seats do not necessarily mean lost Coalition seats.
On taking the lowest earners out of tax alone, a LD manifesto policy, Clegg got something into government legislation which was more than his predecessors have achieved for a century
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
I definitely fall into the camp of those who've massively reduced their exposure to British live TV, barring major sporting events. There just isn't anything that really interests me any more. In fact, I've moved away from most domestic broadcaster catch up services too, barring the occasional BBC4 documentary that catches my eye (even those are getting scarcer over the past year or so). There are perhaps 1-2 full series per year that I watch from domestic broadcasters, at most.
I do actually watch quite a lot of TV though: it's just that it's streamed from other sites and can be some fairly obscure foreign series, and well as independent internet content.
Mind you, the license fee is very good value, but I do wish it was a subscription model instead of a mandatory fee. It just strikes me as weird that something as frivolous as television is effectively a state product. I'd consider £200-250 total fair for just the BBC website (inc. iPlayer), BBC4 and the sporting events, and would pay that no problem if that was the balancing required to manage the lower numbers willing to pay for a voluntary subscription service instead of a state-funded broadcaster. I think a lot of people would, too.
But can you imagine the grumbling!? Arguments over austerity or Scottish independence would pale by comparison...
What grumbling? Cutting a tax? Plenty of other channels to watch.
Also, the bonus of not paying a compulsory fee to an organisation with a questionable record on child protection.
[snip] Over the last decade a phenomenon has occurred which the advertisers are aware of and dislike intensely.
I never watch a TV show 'live'. I dvr it and watch later, so-called timeshifting. For example last Monday was the first of a two part finale to the season of 'Sleepy Hollow'. I will wait until tomorrow and watch both parts at the same time, fast forwarding through the commercials.
Everyone has a dvr these days.
The one exception is sports. The major sports - football, baseball, basketball, hockey - are shown live. This has got the advertisers attention. 'Match of the Day' wouldn't work here. Over the last 12-18 months there has been a plethora of new sports networks.[/snip]
Agree with all of that. Personally we go further - for series with a distinct storyline (rather than a running theme) we'll try to wait until the season has finished and then watch the whole lot in a weekend or at most a week. And there won't be adverts in any of them. We'll only be subliminally absorbing the product placement
In your specific example I'm really looking forward to getting all of Sleepy Hollow in one go and watching it beginning to end. Haven't seen any of it yet.
The only television watched here also is, as you say, live sports. Plenty of targeted advertising to ignore in that; especially in the commercial breaks during televised bullfighting from the Spanish satellite. And watching rolling news when there's a need for some background noise.
You'll have a ways to go - Sleepy Hollow is finihing its second season.
Bullfighting - as a kid I lived in Tenerife for 7 years. I would go to bullfighting in the old ring in Santa Cruz with my dad. What always made me laugh was that about 10 minutes after the poor animal's carcass was dragged from the ring, a blackboard would be raised with a 3 figure number. It was the price in pesetas for a kilo of the bull's meat.
The last time I was at a bullfight was 10 years ago, while staying at Ronda, at a place called Moron (accent on the last syllable!). It was a brand new concrete brutal ring, paid for by the EU. The skill of the matadors was superb - one got 2 ears and a tail - but it was like sitting in a bus station.
I'm used to double season marathons! Last month we did both seasons of House of Cards across two weekends.
I've been to Ronda on many occasions as it's just up the road and have friends who live there. Although when we have been to the fights it's normally closer to home in Los Barrios which is only a short drive. Much more intimate and social as an location and a great weekend out for the family.
I see that non-EU Switzerland (immigrant population 25% ) has decisively voted not to restrict immigration in accord with a referendum proposal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
''Last year, net immigration stood at 81,000'' With the Swiss population at 8.2 million then pro rata that is the equivalent of a net migrant flow of 633,000 for the UK. The proposal would have demanded it be reduced to 16,000 (or the equivalent to 125,000 for the UK) So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
(BTW, The UK-equivalent immigration figure for non-EU Norway is 590,000).
Some dodgy figures in there and also obviously doesn't mention the big fat elephant in the room as to some of the causes behind increase in in-work benefits.
Be interesting to see if it gains any traction and improve the two Eds terrible standing on economic issues.
TimB I believe PBS is typically operated by non-profits, state agencies, local authorities, universities etc? It is a model that could work
NickP Indeed, but not to ITV, C4 and C5 I believe, I agree we want to keep advertising out of radio
Keeping it as simple as possible and generalising, there is a thing called the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is the umbrella under which all the NPR (radio) and PBS (TV) stations operate. They get federal and state funding for equipent and chidren's programming. CPB does not make programming itself.
Programming is supported by fund raising at the station level. For example in Georgia, Georgia Public Broadcasting operates about 20 TV stations out of Atlanta. They also have the same number of radio stations. GPB does the fundraising centrally.
Oddly there is no GPB radio station in Atlanta. The Atlanta NPR station license is held by the Atlanta Public Schools system. They also have a PBS station in Atlanta. The University of Georgia up the road in Athens also has a PBS station, so I have 3 PBS sations to choose from. The APS and UGA stations are 'secondary' stations - they can't show new programming until the primary stations have done so.
The PBS / NPR model would work just fine. You like Radio 4? Great - get your credit card out at fund raising and decide at what level you would like to donate. So Radio 4 would get its funding, it would still be commercial free, and the taxpayer isn't on the hook. win win
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
Yet both Canada and Australia let in more immigrants than us. 2 times and 3 times the proportions of the population than the UK.
How draconian would your points system have to be?
They are gambling that most people either have memory loss and can't remember that Labour caused the whole mess ... or are so greedy that people think the magic money tree will work forever ... or are just plain stupid.
[snip] Over the last decade a phenomenon has occurred which the advertisers are aware of and dislike intensely.
Everyone has a dvr these days.
The one exception is sports. The major sports - football, baseball, basketball, hockey - are shown live. This has got the advertisers attention. 'Match of the Day' wouldn't work here. Over the last 12-18 months there has been a plethora of new sports networks.[/snip]
Agree with all of that. Personally we go further - for series with a distinct storyline (rather than a running theme) we'll try to wait until the season has finished and then watch the whole lot in a weekend or at most a week. And there won't be adverts in any of them. We'll only be subliminally absorbing the product placement
In your specific example I'm really looking forward to getting all of Sleepy Hollow in one go and watching it beginning to end. Haven't seen any of it yet.
The only television watched here also is, as you say, live sports. Plenty of targeted advertising to ignore in that; especially in the commercial breaks during televised bullfighting from the Spanish satellite. And watching rolling news when there's a need for some background noise.
You'll have a ways to go - Sleepy Hollow is finihing its second season.
Bullfighting - as a kid I lived in Tenerife for 7 years. I would go to bullfighting in the old ring in Santa Cruz with my dad. What always made me laugh was that about 10 minutes after the poor animal's carcass was dragged from the ring, a blackboard would be raised with a 3 figure number. It was the price in pesetas for a kilo of the bull's meat.
The last time I was at a bullfight was 10 years ago, while staying at Ronda, at a place called Moron (accent on the last syllable!). It was a brand new concrete brutal ring, paid for by the EU. The skill of the matadors was superb - one got 2 ears and a tail - but it was like sitting in a bus station.
I'm used to double season marathons! Last month we did both seasons of House of Cards across two weekends.
I've been to Ronda on many occasions as it's just up the road and have friends who live there. Although when we have been to the fights it's normally closer to home in Los Barrios which is only a short drive. Much more intimate and social as an location and a great weekend out for the family.
I went on the bullring tour in Ronda and through the museum but there was no bullfight unfortunately. I would love to see a fight there - it is such a lovely place. And a street behind it named after Orson Welles - who new?
House of Cards - did you see the original BBC version?
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
When I went to Canada the last item on the points was your age - under 35 you got a point per year, over 35 you lost a point per year. I was still in my 20s.
I don't recall if age was a points issue when coming to the US - don't think it was.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
When I went to Canada the last item on the points was your age - under 35 you got a point per year, over 35 you lost a point per year. I was still in my 20s.
I don't recall if age was a points issue when coming to the US - don't think it was.
I think on a H1-B employment visa you just need a job lined up.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
When I went to Canada the last item on the points was your age - under 35 you got a point per year, over 35 you lost a point per year. I was still in my 20s.
I don't recall if age was a points issue when coming to the US - don't think it was.
I think on a H1-B employment visa you just need a job lined up.
Yup, that was the case - for me anyway.
For Canada you had to have the job which is worth x points and also make enough other points. I remember the age thing but there were other point items which 35 years on I don't recall.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
Yet both Canada and Australia let in more immigrants than us. 2 times and 3 times the proportions of the population than the UK.
How draconian would your points system have to be?
You might have noticed they are both just a little bit bigger and emptier as well.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
Yet both Canada and Australia let in more immigrants than us. 2 times and 3 times the proportions of the population than the UK.
How draconian would your points system have to be?
Canada is larger than the USA yet has 1/10 of the population.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
Yet both Canada and Australia let in more immigrants than us. 2 times and 3 times the proportions of the population than the UK.
How draconian would your points system have to be?
Canada is larger than the USA yet has 1/10 of the population.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
Yet both Canada and Australia let in more immigrants than us. 2 times and 3 times the proportions of the population than the UK.
How draconian would your points system have to be?
Canada is larger than the USA yet has 1/10 of the population.
Its 35 years since I went to Canada and over 30 since I came to the USA so I'm sure it's changed quite a lot.
I remember looking at Australia in the very early 1970s and I think you paid 10 pounds and they'd fund your trip and that was that - in those days they were desparate for people.
Over 45 seems an odd time to want to emigrate - mind if I ask why now?
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
Yet both Canada and Australia let in more immigrants than us. 2 times and 3 times the proportions of the population than the UK.
How draconian would your points system have to be?
Canada is larger than the USA yet has 1/10 of the population.
Its 35 years since I went to Canada and over 30 since I came to the USA so I'm sure it's changed quite a lot.
I remember looking at Australia in the very early 1970s and I think you paid 10 pounds and they'd fund your trip and that was that - in those days they were desparate for people.
Over 45 seems an odd time to want to emigrate - mind if I ask why now?
I actually have emigrated, I am in the Philippines at the moment and got my permanent residency a couple of years ago. We left the UK as the last downturn started as we were going to have to downsize our house because business was bad, and didn't want to feel like going backwards in our life. We looked around at options for emigrating and Australia and Canada were too tough, so we came here for a year as a sabbatical and sort of didn't go home again, although we might next year now depending who wins the election ;-)
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
Someone should tell the Canadians and the Australians... I tried Canada a few years ago, despite my qualifications and experience I couldn't build up enough points to offset being the wrong side of 45!
Yet both Canada and Australia let in more immigrants than us. 2 times and 3 times the proportions of the population than the UK.
How draconian would your points system have to be?
Canada is larger than the USA yet has 1/10 of the population.
Its 35 years since I went to Canada and over 30 since I came to the USA so I'm sure it's changed quite a lot.
I remember looking at Australia in the very early 1970s and I think you paid 10 pounds and they'd fund your trip and that was that - in those days they were desparate for people.
Over 45 seems an odd time to want to emigrate - mind if I ask why now?
I actually have emigrated, I am in the Philippines at the moment and got my permanent residency a couple of years ago. We left the UK as the last downturn started as we were going to have to downsize our house because business was bad, and didn't want to feel like going backwards in our life. We looked around at options for emigrating and Australia and Canada were too tough, so we came here for a year as a sabbatical and sort of didn't go home again, although we might next year now depending who wins the election ;-)
We left the UK during the 'winter of discontent' in 78-79. I knew North America well so that was our destination. Have you investigated coming to the US?
They are gambling that most people either have memory loss and can't remember that Labour caused the whole mess ... or are so greedy that people think the magic money tree will work forever ... or are just plain stupid.
So it's probably going to work.
What really annoys me about this fake 'analysis' is that only picks out measures that 'prove' the point they wish to make. It ignores anything that could contradict the new attack line. It fails to take into consideration how things would have been if the last Labour manifesto had been implemented. And is, quite frankly, just another political lie.
No wonder we have a political class that people don't (and won't) trust - when they come out with Balls like this.
The £1600 drop in living standards lie was exposed - but they continue to spout it.
We need to make sure that this highly selective and meaningless new line is exposed for what it is.
Fairly sure if the government stopped p155ing around and forced local authorities to empty bins properly every week it would be a significant vote winner. Its those sort of everyday things that annoy people every week that make a difference. They have made a few half hearted attempts before, but Pickles offering them a few quid to do it isn't quite the same thing as actually forcing them to do it using whatever legislative route is most efficient.
Fairly sure if the government stopped p155ing around and forced local authorities to empty bins properly every week it would be a significant vote winner. Its those sort of everyday things that annoy people every week that make a difference. They have made a few half hearted attempts before, but Pickles offering them a few quid to do it isn't quite the same thing as actually forcing them to do it using whatever legislative route is most efficient.
I wish the government would also do some head bashing in regards to the general bin system. You go to one LA area and they have 7 different bins, but wont take x or y, you go 10 mins down the road and you find that households 2 bins and won't take other items, another 10 mins and residents get 4-5 bins.
There is no way it is efficient for all these different LA's to have totally different systems.
Fairly sure if the government stopped p155ing around and forced local authorities to empty bins properly every week it would be a significant vote winner. Its those sort of everyday things that annoy people every week that make a difference. They have made a few half hearted attempts before, but Pickles offering them a few quid to do it isn't quite the same thing as actually forcing them to do it using whatever legislative route is most efficient.
I wish the government would also do some head bashing in regards to the general bin system. You go to one LA area and they have 7 different bins, but wont take x or y, you go 10 mins down the road and you find that households 2 bins and won't take other items, another 10 mins and residents get 4-5 bins.
There is no way it is efficient for all these different LA's to have totally different systems.
In Phoenix, AZ, I only had one bin. It was very easy!
(OT) I have been wondering about something for a while, and I have done a bit of Googleing to find an answer.
A joke which is repeated every now and then on Twitter (usually by lefties) quotes Dennis Skinner MP as saying "Half the members opposite are crooks" and then, when asked by the Speaker to withdraw, "Half the members opposite are not crooks". The exact words in the quotation vary, and no citation is ever given.
But the origin of the quote is even older than Skinner himself:
quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/19/half-fools/
although he did actually say something slightly similar in 1981, referring to the attendance record of David Alton:
Fairly sure if the government stopped p155ing around and forced local authorities to empty bins properly every week it would be a significant vote winner. Its those sort of everyday things that annoy people every week that make a difference. They have made a few half hearted attempts before, but Pickles offering them a few quid to do it isn't quite the same thing as actually forcing them to do it using whatever legislative route is most efficient.
I wish the government would also do some head bashing in regards to the general bin system. You go to one LA area and they have 7 different bins, but wont take x or y, you go 10 mins down the road and you find that households 2 bins and won't take other items, another 10 mins and residents get 4-5 bins.
There is no way it is efficient for all these different LA's to have totally different systems.
In Phoenix, AZ, I only had one bin. It was very easy!
IMO, the simplest solution would be 2 bins (possibly 3 with food waste), one bin for non-recyclable, and one for recyclable. My elderly folks have 7 different bins, you have to be seriously dedicated to recycling to split up your waste into such a large number of different bins. I know when I visit, I look at it, and just go nahhh f##k it.
These days it is possible to automate a large amount of the sorting of recycling. If every region agreed on one kind of system as above, all waste could be sent to large automated recycling plants (and on the continent where they have these plants, all stuff that goes there that isn't recoverable can then be burned for power).
Comments
I was somewhat annoyed the other day when I heard on the BBC R5, several times throughout the day, about an RoI football player not being fit to play for their national team.
Why the hell should our national broadcaster be telling us that?
If it's good for us to learn that, why is it not good to hear about the selection of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricket teams? Or the australian South African and New Zealand rugby union and league selection decisions?
Where does it stop?
And why does it not tell us about the home nations' youth teams in these sports?
Currently Labour is on course to gain around 9 LD seats and with a swing of 5.5% from the Tories in Tory marginals, they gain another 68 Tory seats for a total of 77, putting them at the edge of a majority, from which they can afford losing max.9 seats to the SNP without losing it.
It's the ending to their story which always counts, as the inventor of democracy Solon taught the rich and arrogant Lydian king Croesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon
" Croesus had considered himself to be the happiest man alive and Solon had advised him, "Count no man happy until he be dead." The reasoning was that at any minute, fortune might turn on even the happiest man and make his life miserable. It was only after he had lost his kingdom to the Persian king Cyrus, while awaiting execution, that Croesus acknowledged the wisdom of Solon's advice."
So far the end of Clegg and the LD coalition looks grim in historical terms and that is what historians will record, as an example even now 30 years after the 83 election they still regard Foot in negative terms you know.
Are you accusing me something as well?
Gai kakhen afenyam
Anyone that wants better detail of foreign sports news can easily find it elsewhere.
Can you imagine US channels giving priority to foreign sports results over college football and basketball?'
Lab 33.5% (+0.1)
Con 31.4% (-1.5)
UKIP 16.1% (+0.7)
LD 7.4% (+0.3)
Lab lead 2.1% (+1.7)
Will be interesting to see if ComRes reinforces this or not!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
''Last year, net immigration stood at 81,000''
With the Swiss population at 8.2 million then pro rata that is the equivalent of a net migrant flow of 633,000 for the UK.
The proposal would have demanded it be reduced to 16,000 (or the equivalent to 125,000 for the UK)
So the Swiss who Farage says we should emulate have rejected his immigration policy.
(BTW, The UK-equivalent immigration figure for non-EU Norway is 590,000).
The nearest equivalent to Radio 4 is NPR. However the network is only up 6-10am and 4-6pm wekdays for news programming. Otherwise it's mainly classical music. They do have saturday morning talk programming and an opera on Saturday afternoons, followed by the magnificent Prairie Home Companion live from 6-8pm. They also still broadcast My Word with Frank Muir. Yes, I know he is.
When Prairie Home Companion was in Atlanta a few years back I got to go and see it live.
Today's referendum was a bit of Green lunacy re world population control. It included the Swiss paying large amounts for international family planning services. Being sensible the Swiss binned it.
The Referendum on mandatory Swiss(only) immigration control was passed in Feb 2014.
Its now part of the the Swiss Constitution and the Swiss gov is implementing it.
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/po... (german)
As for Solon and Croesus, there is not really much point being happy when you are dead is there, the final years maybe!
@MikeSmithson
Why is @Nigel4England banned?
What has posh Cameron have to sell to the public apart from his boring Long Term Economic Plan (which no one knows what it is) and his outUKIP, UKIP approach?
So far Labour have a wider collection of policies which the public easily understand and like, ranging from railway part-nationalization to capping utility bills to reforming taxation on private education.
But I must admit I never listen to spoken radio at home. I'd have to listen to it, and there's too much to do (I don't have a TV either, for the same reason, though I'll catch up with stuff at odd moments on iPlayer - quite a common solution among young people in the UK). In the car, I've nothing else to do. Not sure if that's the same reason as in the US. Do Americans still watch a lot of live TV?
And I am not sure it is possible to 'raid' NI. In respect of pensions its used to make the payments. I have a memory of reading that the balancing fund was increased a little while ago.
Clearly the NI does not pay for the NHS. Did it ever? And of course no country pays for all their NHS costs out of purely insurance payments.
Myself I think that if unemployment goes up then NI should go up to pay and when it falls it should come down.
.
You are saying that anyone who has entered government is judged by history kindly, however that is not the case, history will judge you as to what you have left behind.
If you are the government and you have been judged by the public to be a massive failure and a disappointment so large as to receive a crushing defeat at the next election, history will record only the result (TSE is reminding us constantly about Hannibal).
In modern history I need to only utter one name to prove that how you end is what matters, G.W.Bush.
And we still sing about Waterloo.
On those sorts of numbers, can there even be a minority government of either colour with enough votes to pass a Queen's Speech? Another GE to follow within months, chaos in between, internal party strife likely to overwhelm all three main parties, probably Tories most of all. Intense pressure on all the party leaders to resign, though I suspect at least Milliband will hang on. Likely dreadful for sterling and the markets in general, as suggested already. I'm planning a bit to mitigate against this possibility, but there are real limits to what can reasonably be done without going overboard.
Plus, the real problem will be what happens if the second election is as gridlocked as the first!
I really hope I'm wrong about this prediction. Bizarrely, I'd even prefer a small Milliband majority government to the above scenario, which is really saying something... at least that's something I can somewhat proof my affairs against, rather than complete chaos undermining the markets for months on end.
It's an unpopular view, I think, but as a broadly libertarian person I've found the Coalition to be a generally benign entity with each part balancing the other's excesses reasonably well. I can quibble about the detail on many policies from both a liberal social and liberal economic perspective, but overall - and in the absence of there being a truly liberal party with a chance of government - it's suited me. I'd rather like it if both parties can do the same again, but I don't see the numbers working out. Plus enough of them hate each other that if the Tories recover enough to come fairly close again, I think both sides would far prefer a minority Tory government for year or so instead.
Capping utility bills? Fixing prices far higher than they would have been otherwise (it's happened already)
Reforming taxation on private education? Putting far more pressure on the already overburdened state education system
All it is, as far as I can tell, is a tax on jobs.
"Are things turning nasty in Thurrock?
Politics is getting increasingly ugly. One example is a Tory leaflet in Thurrock, Essex, that calls Tim Aker, Ukip’s candidate there, ‘Timür Aker’ in what, to me, seems a clear attempt to remind voters of his Turkish roots.
This appears to be a cheap tactic, seeing as Aker is known by all – and refers to himself – as Tim. It seems clear what these Tories were trying to do, and it is worthy of nothing but contempt. The Tories won’t beat Ukip – locally or nationally – by diving headfirst into the gutter. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2854566/Silence-Dave-biggest-immigration-gamble-yet.html#ixzz3Kb4PxIdM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
But of course I went native many years ago
Jackie Doyle-Price @JackieDP
· Nov 29
Great show by @JimDOfficial no thanks to the Dartford crossing. A crusader against political correctness, I salute you
Except that I love TMS too much to contemplate the idea!
"BUT inside Number 10 there is recognition that the immigration issue has been mishandled in recent weeks.
Part of the problem was that the Tory leadership falsely raised the hopes of hardline Eurosceptic backbenchers that Cameron was going to challenge the whole principle of EU free movement. But as one senior figure explains: ‘The more you looked at a cap, the more you realised it was not easy to deliver.’
And for all the finger-jabbing, the Tory leadership had no stomach for a full-on confrontation with the rest of the EU. George Osborne feared that doing this would alienate business at home as well as allies abroad."
The earlier referendum, which requires Switzerland to have annual quotas for immigrants, does not take effect immediately but requires the Swiss government to implement a quota system within three years. Given that it would break other international agreements it presents a difficulty for them and the Swiss are currently being excluded from EU scientific projects. Good luck to them - its their affair. Their immigration relative to ours is what it is.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Non-national_population_by_group_of_citizenship_and_foreign-born_population_by_country_of_birth,_1_January_2013_YB14_II.png
Britain is in the middle of the pack in the EU and EFTA nations
In the rest of the world it is not much different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population
So far as I can see, no developed country seems to be able to control immigration, which is why I am sceptical that the kippers can. Even the visa changes for Non-EU citizens to require funds before bringing in spouses, repatriate students and restrict skilled professionals like doctors coming in have still permitted a net influx of 168 000 or so.
A point system seems easy in the saloon bar, pint in hand, but very difficult in practice.
The ""Long Term Economic Plan" is quite clearly an overall focus on trying to drive down the structural deficit through gradual, incremental and continuous public sector spending restraint, while cutting private sector taxes wherever possible as and when economic growth allows, to permit further transfer of drivers of wealth from the public to private sector, hopefully providing a more stable base for future growth, as well as on a political level reducing the size of the potential client base of their opposition.
The detail should depend on the exact economic circumstances at the time of each review (ie each Budget/Autumn Statement), as would be expected. I think it's silly for any politician/party (or economist!) to claim to know exactly what the economy will be like more than about 6-12 months in advance. Much better to have an idea of the general direction of travel, and to know the priorities to develop when the opportunity arises.
You may well have a different political/economic perspective on the desirability/effectiveness of this vision, but of all things to criticise the Conservatives on, lacking an obvious preferred direction of economic travel is not one of things I'd choose.
And history will still judge Clegg as badly as the public verdict, the only think that people will remember about Clegg in 30, 50 or 100 years time will be pretty much nothing apart from leading his party over the cliff, after all what has Clegg ever achieved in power apart from being in it?
You see you are focusing on power for power's sake without knowing what to do with it.
I never watch a TV show 'live'. I dvr it and watch later, so-called timeshifting. For example last Monday was the first of a two part finale to the season of 'Sleepy Hollow'. I will wait until tomorrow and watch both parts at the same time, fast forwarding through the commercials.
Everyone has a dvr these days.
The one exception is sports. The major sports - football, baseball, basketball, hockey - are shown live. This has got the advertisers attention. 'Match of the Day' wouldn't work here. Over the last 12-18 months there has been a plethora of new sports networks.
The premier sports package has to be DirecTV and its exclusive NFL Sunday Ticket. You can watch any and all of the NFL Sunday games (except the NBC Sunday Night game which is available to everyone) live. There is even -and this has to be the best idea ever - the Red Zone Channel, which takes you to any game where it looks like a team is about to score. They often have 2 and 3 teams on the screen at once. It's like a real time highlight reel. The whole package (including watching the games on your phone or tablet) costs $300 per year and is worth every penny. I'm watching it now. They also have a Fantasy Zone Channel for fantasy football fans of which I am not one.
The other cable companies were losing so many subscribers to DirecTV that they complained to the NFL, so the NFL now provides a different Red Zone Channel for non-DirecTV subscribers.
The DirecTV Red Zone Channel doesn't have commercial breaks.
Or long story short: You don't know either what it is and neither anyone who read your post.
I don't know what 'national events' are but given we have at least 4 24/7 news networks, they are covered more than adequately.
The taxpayer shouldn't be paying to get F1 or premier league TV coverage. That's just wrong.
For years PBS was known as the Petroleum Broadcasting Service because of the preponderence of sponsorship by oil companies. Why couldn't Exxon Mobil sponsor Wagner's Ring on BBC2 for example?
Clegg has helped restore the economy to the fastest growing in the G7, if he delivers a surplus in 2018 and continues with the welfare, education reforms etc not to mention taking the lowest earners out of tax he will be a far more significant historical figure than Charles Kennedy who achieved what with his leadership? Opposition to a war which went ahead anyway and a few more protest votes!
Not having advertising on radio is a huge plus (as illustrated by the way even ad-habituated Americans use fast forward to avoid it).
But to be honest, I don't really think there's anything particularly complex about the highlighted bit that I've left in my nested quote, which is the real core of the answer.
I fully accept it's an exceptionally difficult sell to distill down into a marketable soundbite. This is is precisely why political discourse is so dreadful, why we have stupid catchphrases instead of explaining things properly, and why I would never countenance becoming a politician, joining a political party or campaigning.
I think it rots the head of anyone who does, to the point of their actually believing the tripe they incessantly spout. I once thought about trying to be an MP and then sobered up. Terrible job, and even if you somehow become PM, you're still hamstrung as to what you can actually do. Plus, crap salary given the nature/responsibility of the job and your only possible endpoint is abject failure, even if posterity is later kind to you. And in the meantime, full exposure to the public gaze. Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
It's all a terrible way to have to run a country; shame it's the only reasonably fair option. That's where Sir Humphrey and I differ, I suppose. He'd be quite happy running it himself, as a dictatorship. I'm merely happy to figure out enough about it all to protect myself from the worst of whichever party is in power.
"Clegg has helped restore the economy to the fastest growing in the G7" Pathetic for a Tory, what happened to Tory boy wonder Osborne and supreme leader Cameron, or they were simply minions in front of the vast power of deputy PM Nick Clegg?
Clegg has done nothing, leaves behind nothing, and will be remembered for nothing.
In your specific example I'm really looking forward to getting all of Sleepy Hollow in one go and watching it beginning to end. Haven't seen any of it yet.
The only television watched here also is, as you say, live sports. Plenty of targeted advertising to ignore in that; especially in the commercial breaks during televised bullfighting from the Spanish satellite. And watching rolling news when there's a need for some background noise.
Immigration, Immigration, Immigration.
Always a new bogie man who can be blamed for all the ills of the country.
Who was it last election? And who next?
The quid pro quo is that PBS broadcasts lots of quality kids programming. The great facilities also means they can rent them out - for example CNN uses the PBS studios in Atlanta to record programming, a useful source of revenue. During state elections - governor etc - the debates are held at the PBS studios.
Programming is paid for by the fundrasing model. During fund raisers - which typically feature special programming or special guests such as Downton Abbey stars - great attention is paid to who pledges how much during which program. In other words PBS viewers literally get what they pay for.
NickP Indeed, but not to ITV, C4 and C5 I believe, I agree we want to keep advertising out of radio
Couldn't Jim Murphy get a list MSP to resign? In which case, Labour get to choose the replacement, ie Jim Murphy
"he can claim as much credit for the government's successes as they can"
Is that why he has gone from 24% to 6% while the Tories have gone from 36% to only 31%?
Clegg has done nothing, leaves behind nothing, and will be remembered for nothing.
1979 Unions
1983 Labour
1987 Loony Left
1992 Taxes
1997 Tories
2001 Euro
2005 Terrorists
2010 Deficits
Bang on about one theme that captures the zeitgeist, and pretend the other problems are unimportant?
It seems a good way to win elections, utter pants for solving anything.
I'm only guessing from the MEP version of list elections - no idea how the MSP thing works.
And that is the government's biggest problem, they can't articulate what they are doing and what they are going to do, perhaps they don't even know.
Goodnight
Bullfighting - as a kid I lived in Tenerife for 7 years. I would go to bullfighting in the old ring in Santa Cruz with my dad. What always made me laugh was that about 10 minutes after the poor animal's carcass was dragged from the ring, a blackboard would be raised with a 3 figure number. It was the price in pesetas for a kilo of the bull's meat.
The last time I was at a bullfight was 10 years ago, while staying at Ronda, at a place called Moron (accent on the last syllable!). It was a brand new concrete brutal ring, paid for by the EU. The skill of the matadors was superb - one got 2 ears and a tail - but it was like sitting in a bus station.
http://www.bsa-31.natcen.ac.uk/read-the-report/immigration/overall-attitudes-to-immigration-persistent-concerns,-deep-divides.aspx Last time I looked we were still a democracy.
I definitely fall into the camp of those who've massively reduced their exposure to British live TV, barring major sporting events. There just isn't anything that really interests me any more. In fact, I've moved away from most domestic broadcaster catch up services too, barring the occasional BBC4 documentary that catches my eye (even those are getting scarcer over the past year or so). There are perhaps 1-2 full series per year that I watch from domestic broadcasters, at most.
I do actually watch quite a lot of TV though: it's just that it's streamed from other sites and can be some fairly obscure foreign series, and well as independent internet content.
Mind you, the license fee is very good value, but I do wish it was a subscription model instead of a mandatory fee. It just strikes me as weird that something as frivolous as television is effectively a state product. I'd consider £200-250 total fair for just the BBC website (inc. iPlayer), BBC4 and the sporting events, and would pay that no problem if that was the balancing required to manage the lower numbers willing to pay for a voluntary subscription service instead of a state-funded broadcaster. I think a lot of people would, too.
But can you imagine the grumbling!? Arguments over austerity or Scottish independence would pale by comparison...
On taking the lowest earners out of tax alone, a LD manifesto policy, Clegg got something into government legislation which was more than his predecessors have achieved for a century
Also, the bonus of not paying a compulsory fee to an organisation with a questionable record on child protection.
I've been to Ronda on many occasions as it's just up the road and have friends who live there. Although when we have been to the fights it's normally closer to home in Los Barrios which is only a short drive. Much more intimate and social as an location and a great weekend out for the family.
We are still a democracy, and voters in a democracy need honesty from their politicians.
Leaving aside EU immigration; how would you reduce the 168 000 non EU migrants over and above the coalitions current restrictions?
Miliband: Government's economic failures cost us all
The government's "failure" to boost wages has cost the Treasury £116.5bn since 2010, Labour has claimed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30267675
Some dodgy figures in there and also obviously doesn't mention the big fat elephant in the room as to some of the causes behind increase in in-work benefits.
Be interesting to see if it gains any traction and improve the two Eds terrible standing on economic issues.
Programming is supported by fund raising at the station level. For example in Georgia, Georgia Public Broadcasting operates about 20 TV stations out of Atlanta. They also have the same number of radio stations. GPB does the fundraising centrally.
Oddly there is no GPB radio station in Atlanta. The Atlanta NPR station license is held by the Atlanta Public Schools system. They also have a PBS station in Atlanta. The University of Georgia up the road in Athens also has a PBS station, so I have 3 PBS sations to choose from. The APS and UGA stations are 'secondary' stations - they can't show new programming until the primary stations have done so.
The PBS / NPR model would work just fine. You like Radio 4? Great - get your credit card out at fund raising and decide at what level you would like to donate. So Radio 4 would get its funding, it would still be commercial free, and the taxpayer isn't on the hook. win win
How draconian would your points system have to be?
So it's probably going to work.
House of Cards - did you see the original BBC version?
I don't recall if age was a points issue when coming to the US - don't think it was.
For Canada you had to have the job which is worth x points and also make enough other points. I remember the age thing but there were other point items which 35 years on I don't recall.
Seems they have eased up on the age requirement a bit, I might just scrape in now, but only by a point or two.
Australia now appears much stricter than when we looked 5-6 years ago, if you dont have a skill on the list your basically sunk now it seems
http://www.workpermit.com/australia/general-skilled-migration.htm
even if you have the skill you need to pass 60pts on the test
http://www.workpermit.com/australia/general-skilled-migration/points_requirements.htm
I remember looking at Australia in the very early 1970s and I think you paid 10 pounds and they'd fund your trip and that was that - in those days they were desparate for people.
Over 45 seems an odd time to want to emigrate - mind if I ask why now?
No wonder we have a political class that people don't (and won't) trust - when they come out with Balls like this.
The £1600 drop in living standards lie was exposed - but they continue to spout it.
We need to make sure that this highly selective and meaningless new line is exposed for what it is.
A cheap stunt with no backing in reality.
Families wait 12 days to have bins emptied http://tgr.ph/1CwgmpL
Fairly sure if the government stopped p155ing around and forced local authorities to empty bins properly every week it would be a significant vote winner. Its those sort of everyday things that annoy people every week that make a difference. They have made a few half hearted attempts before, but Pickles offering them a few quid to do it isn't quite the same thing as actually forcing them to do it using whatever legislative route is most efficient.
There is no way it is efficient for all these different LA's to have totally different systems.
A joke which is repeated every now and then on Twitter (usually by lefties) quotes Dennis Skinner MP as saying "Half the members opposite are crooks" and then, when asked by the Speaker to withdraw, "Half the members opposite are not crooks". The exact words in the quotation vary, and no citation is ever given.
But the origin of the quote is even older than Skinner himself:
quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/19/half-fools/
although he did actually say something slightly similar in 1981, referring to the attendance record of David Alton:
hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1981/apr/01/saving-for-things-done-under-a-licence#S6CV0002P0_19810401_HOC_600
These days it is possible to automate a large amount of the sorting of recycling. If every region agreed on one kind of system as above, all waste could be sent to large automated recycling plants (and on the continent where they have these plants, all stuff that goes there that isn't recoverable can then be burned for power).