That's got to be the funniest development of the whole campaign!
Not pink apparently but, 'magenta'. That trusty friend Wikipedia defines magenta as ... the mixture of red and violet/blue light, with the absence of... wait for it... green. Magenta is not a colour that emits light of its own but reflects light from its surroundings.
On the other hand Labour may be onto something all you cynics are missing. If you are into the mystical vibration of energy then Magenta - is the colour of the 8th chakra - " The Soul Star " - residing just outside the physical body, and above the head. the metaphor for Absolution of Duality is the closest connection to the God-Head possible - so maybe the van marks the much heralded return to planet earth of Blair.
However just as I was reading that magenta is - 'an instrument of change and transformation; it helps to release old emotional patterns that prevent personal and spiritual development and aids us in moving forward' (which almost had me loving big brother) - I stumbled into a problem. Magenta 'can promote depression and despair in some, and prevent others from dealing with challenges - it may be just too relaxing for introverts and the chronically depressed.' and 'Being surrounded by too much magenta energy can generate arrogance and bossiness making us feel overwhelmed, irritated, anxious and intolerant.'
How odd Cameron copying Kinnocks famous 'I warn you not to grow old...' speech to business leaders.
If it wasn't that I'd be sure to be the kiss of death I'd predict a surprisingly good election for Labour. Though I haven't met many anyone impressed with Ed yet I've come accross a surprising number who don't rate Cameron
Lots of people don't rate Cameron. They just think Ed's worse.
The problem for the Coalition is they originally promised to sort out the deficit by the end of this year, the fact Osborne is signalling 3 or 4 more years of cuts means Labour can be less reliably blamed for the cuts as each year goes by
Which is one of the main pitfalls for whoever wins the next election. The responsibility for the coming cuts this time round will be leveled almost purely at the party carrying them out.
That's got to be the funniest development of the whole campaign!
Not pink apparently but, 'magenta'. That trusty friend Wikipedia defines magenta as ... the mixture of red and violet/blue light, with the absence of... wait for it... green. Magenta is not a colour that emits light of its own but reflects light from its surroundings.
On the other hand Labour may be onto something all you cynics are missing. If you are into the mystical vibration of energy then Magenta - is the colour of the 8th chakra - " The Soul Star " - residing just outside the physical body, and above the head. the metaphor for Absolution of Duality is the closest connection to the God-Head possible - so maybe the van marks the much heralded return to planet earth of Blair.
However just as I was reading that magenta is - 'an instrument of change and transformation; it helps to release old emotional patterns that prevent personal and spiritual development and aids us in moving forward' (which almost had me loving big brother) - I stumbled into a problem. Magenta 'can promote depression and despair in some, and prevent others from dealing with challenges - it may be just too relaxing for introverts and the chronically depressed.' and 'Being surrounded by too much magenta energy can generate arrogance and bossiness making us feel overwhelmed, irritated, anxious and intolerant.'
Lets go with 'pink'.
A colour named after a bloody battle of 1859, Piedmont-Sardina & French v Austria.
The problem for the Coalition is they originally promised to sort out the deficit by the end of this year, the fact Osborne is signalling 3 or 4 more years of cuts means Labour can be less reliably blamed for the cuts as each year goes by
Osborne 'promised' to cut the structural deficit. This was ruled bigger than thought, plus the Eurozone crisis hit the economy. Gordon Brown was running a structural deficit of 5% of GDP in the pre-2008 good times.
''Many people think that in 2010 he pledged to eliminate the budget deficit by the May 2015 election. That is not the case. The aim was to get the so-called cyclically-adjusted current budget deficit down to zero (and beyond), but public sector net borrowing – the overall deficit – was predicted to be 2.1% of gross domestic product this year, 2014-15'' http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html 'there has been slippage'' but ''as the IFS points out, was that official estimates of the size of the “structural” budget deficit – that which is not dependent on the economic cycle – increased between 2010 and the end of 2012. Osborne could have tried to compensate for that underlying deterioration but chose instead to defer the additional deficit reduction needed until the next parliament.'' ''There are therefore three components to Britain’s deficit problem. There was the structural deficit Labour was running before the crisis, estimated to be between 3.9% and 5.3% of GDP. There was the increase in that deficit as a result of the crisis, and there was the further deterioration when it became clear that the supply-side of the economy – and productivity growth – had been damaged.''
If the public wanted its understanding of the 'deficit' reduced sooner it should have been screaming for more cuts sooner.
From the Beeb "Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Sky have got most of the packages so must be paying about £3.5 billion. Are they big enough to absorb that without quality elsewhere suffering?
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
From the Beeb "Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Sky have got most of the packages so must be paying about £3.5 billion. Are they big enough to absorb that without quality elsewhere suffering?
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
Pink van and domestic violence,it is not all one way,the males get attacked as well. I had an employee who came in one day to report he was signed off and unfit for work. He had his arm in a sling and bandages around his neck. As a good employer I enquired about his problem. "Oh it was the wife,she caught me unawares,she was waiting behind the door when I came in from the pub. She had an axe and laid into me,but I tell you ,I have had enough now,she has gone too far this time." This is a genuine recollection of the conversation,the employee involved did not think it was too unusual,he was used to being attacked,but the axe was a bit too much for him.
The problem for the Coalition is they originally promised to sort out the deficit by the end of this year, the fact Osborne is signalling 3 or 4 more years of cuts means Labour can be less reliably blamed for the cuts as each year goes by
Osborne 'promised' to cut the structural deficit. This was ruled bigger than thought, plus the Eurozone crisis hit the economy. Gordon Brown was running a structural deficit of 5% of GDP in the pre-2008 good times.
''Many people think that in 2010 he pledged to eliminate the budget deficit by the May 2015 election. That is not the case. The aim was to get the so-called cyclically-adjusted current budget deficit down to zero (and beyond), but public sector net borrowing – the overall deficit – was predicted to be 2.1% of gross domestic product this year, 2014-15'' http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html 'there has been slippage'' but ''as the IFS points out, was that official estimates of the size of the “structural” budget deficit – that which is not dependent on the economic cycle – increased between 2010 and the end of 2012. Osborne could have tried to compensate for that underlying deterioration but chose instead to defer the additional deficit reduction needed until the next parliament.'' ''There are therefore three components to Britain’s deficit problem. There was the structural deficit Labour was running before the crisis, estimated to be between 3.9% and 5.3% of GDP. There was the increase in that deficit as a result of the crisis, and there was the further deterioration when it became clear that the supply-side of the economy – and productivity growth – had been damaged.''
If the public wanted its understanding of the 'deficit' reduced sooner it should have been screaming for more cuts sooner.
If you have to explain, you've already lost the political argument. Fairly or not, we've almost reached the limit of public patience with cuts.
From the Beeb "Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Sky have got most of the packages so must be paying about £3.5 billion. Are they big enough to absorb that without quality elsewhere suffering?
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
Sky paid £4bn. BT around £960m.
BT won't get any test matches, Sky signed that up a few weeks ago, as well as ICC tournaments. They also show the IPL this year.
BT won't have a pot to piss in.
They overpaid from Champs League rights starting from this autumn, they are also paying over £10 bn for EE.
All this means, if you have Sky your bills are going up, ditto if you're a BT customer.
From the Beeb "Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Sky have got most of the packages so must be paying about £3.5 billion. Are they big enough to absorb that without quality elsewhere suffering?
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
Sky paid ~£4bn, BT £1bn.
Crikey, thats £1.3 billion a year.
As of last year Sky had 10.61 million subscribers. Assuming that 2/3rds of them have Sky Sports, thats 7.1 million sky sports subscribers.
Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees. That leaves £8.75 per month of a £24.50 sky sports subscription left for all the other sporting rights fees plus the cost of actually running the statio, doing the filming and profit.
Meanwhile BT give football away free with their Broadband.
It's frustrating watching Labour collecting more ammunition than they could use in five elections and not having anyone with the ability to work the firing mechanism.
This tax avoidance and Cameron's part in it is literally the golden bullet. The Tories can have no answer to it yet all I see is the two Eds fannying around kissing the backsides of any businessman who walks into shot.
Whoever was in charge at the time this is a disaster for the Tories not for Labour
From the Beeb "Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Sky have got most of the packages so must be paying about £3.5 billion. Are they big enough to absorb that without quality elsewhere suffering?
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
Sky paid ~£4bn, BT £1bn.
Crikey, thats £1.3 billion a year.
As of last year Sky had 10.61 million subscribers. Assuming that 2/3rds of them have Sky Sports, thats 7.1 million sky sports subscribers.
Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees. That leaves £8.75 per month of a £24.50 sky sports subscription left for all the other sporting rights fees plus the cost of actually running the statio, doing the filming and profit.
Meanwhile BT give football away free with their Broadband.
Ouch.
They won't be giving their sports channels away with broadband packages for much longer.
It's frustrating watching Labour collecting more ammunition than they could use in five elections and not having anyone with the ability to work the firing mechanism.
This tax avoidance and Cameron's part in it is literally the golden bullet. The Tories can have no answer to it yet all I see is the two Eds fannying around kissing the backsides of any businessman who walks into shot.
Whoever was in charge at the time this is a disaster for the Tories not for Labour
LOL
I think the problem is the golden bullet is more of a communal golden shower
Flightpath Osborne should have made the additional cuts necessary then to end the deficit this year, he should have ended ringfencing in my view to that end, and all departments should have faced equal cuts, including overseas aid and non-frontline NHS spending and many pensioner benefits (excluding the state pension)
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewers when it is free, what is going to happen when they try to charge everybody £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
"CoalItion rhetoric" the use of the term says it all really, implies coalition are not pointing out facts which they are. The data is itself interesting to say the least but not really surprising. The electorate need a bout of Labour every now again to remind them how painful it can be. What's happening now is with such a dramatic change in demographic the periods between the bouts become shorter. Same in some ways could be said for the Tories as well I suppose and period out of full office so to speak.
Yeah I know before the lefties burst into pixels ....it's OGH train set and he can go round the track which ever direction he wants etc etc.
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
The broadband feed for Chelsea Liverpool game faltered too often for my liking. I gave up watching.
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
From the Beeb "Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Sky have got most of the packages so must be paying about £3.5 billion. Are they big enough to absorb that without quality elsewhere suffering?
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
Sky paid ~£4bn, BT £1bn.
Crikey, thats £1.3 billion a year.
As of last year Sky had 10.61 million subscribers. Assuming that 2/3rds of them have Sky Sports, thats 7.1 million sky sports subscribers.
Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees. That leaves £8.75 per month of a £24.50 sky sports subscription left for all the other sporting rights fees plus the cost of actually running the statio, doing the filming and profit.
Meanwhile BT give football away free with their Broadband.
Ouch.
In your calculations, you aren't considering that Sky are able to raise a lot of sponsor / advertising money from showing the football.
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
From the Beeb "Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Sky have got most of the packages so must be paying about £3.5 billion. Are they big enough to absorb that without quality elsewhere suffering?
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
Sky paid ~£4bn, BT £1bn.
Crikey, thats £1.3 billion a year.
As of last year Sky had 10.61 million subscribers. Assuming that 2/3rds of them have Sky Sports, thats 7.1 million sky sports subscribers.
Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees. That leaves £8.75 per month of a £24.50 sky sports subscription left for all the other sporting rights fees plus the cost of actually running the statio, doing the filming and profit.
Meanwhile BT give football away free with their Broadband.
Ouch.
In your calculations, you aren't considering that Sky are able to raise a lot of sponsor / advertising money from showing the football.
He's also not factoring in Sky sell Sky Sports to other platforms and pubs. Pub subscriptions are a lot. On average they are paying £1250 per month for Sky sports.
Yes the subscriptions for "public" viewing of Sky sports are absolutely eye-watering, but for many venues they have to have it. I am sure they are going to be seeing a hefty increase in their bills in the next few years.
Yes the subscriptions for "public" viewing of Sky sports are absolutely eye-watering, but for many venues they have to have it. I am sure they are going to be seeing a hefty increase in their bills in the next few years.
However these have to be passed on and there is a limit to which punters will pay.
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
Sky's other interesting hook up was buying out Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland.
I'm dubious about quad play. Do you really want your landline, broadband, mobile phone and TV to come from one subscriber.
Imagine there's a technical problem and you're left without all four. I'd be going bat shit crazy.
I know it appeals for some, because theoretically costs would be lower with quad play.
BT need some proper TV content, because I don't think people will pay for just their sports. They'll want more.
Edit BT Broadband is pretty decent now. I'm get around 60mbs
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
Sky's other interesting hook up was buying out Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland.
I'm dubious about quad play. Do you really want your landline, broadband, mobile phone and TV to come from one subscriber.
Imagine there's a technical problem and you're left without all four. I'd be going bat shit crazy.
I know it appeals for some, because theoretically costs would be lower with quad play
I don't know. I can see the attraction of getting up in the morning, reading the Times on my iPad via my home wireless, then as i leave it switch over to cellphone provider. Then when out and about it switches to hotspot provider. If I am on the tube, I can then watch the best programs, live sport, get instant goal highlights etc.
If all that is seamless operation and I get one bill, that is very attractive to me. The cost saving (or not) isn't that important to me tbh, it is the convenience and content that would be the real seller.
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
Sky's other interesting hook up was buying out Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland.
I'm dubious about quad play. Do you really want your landline, broadband, mobile phone and TV to come from one subscriber.
Imagine there's a technical problem and you're left without all four. I'd be going bat shit crazy.
I know it appeals for some, because theoretically costs would be lower with quad play
I don't know. I can see the attraction of getting up in the morning, reading the Times on my iPad via my home wireless, then as i leave it switch over to cellphone provider. Then when out and about it switches to hotspot provider. If I am on the tube, I can then watch the best programs, live sport, get instant goal highlights etc.
If all that is seamless operation and I get one bill, that is very attractive to me. If it goes tits-up, well that's another story.
I think I'm letting my recent experiences with EE colour my judgement.
I had four contracts with them, and their billing became a nightmare.
"Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees"
Why aren't Labour threatening an enormous licence fee on them like the 3G that almost single handedly paid off the UK deficit. And as an added bonus it'll be coming out of Rupert's pocket......
I have to wonder about BT...they are splashing cash left, right and centre, with all the footy rights, wanting to buy EE, etc, but the nobody is watching the footy on BT despite it being free to the vast majority of customers.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
Oh indeed for the TV connoseiur then Sky cannot be beaten. The catch, £33 for the family bundle including on demand, plus £24.50 for Sky Sports and £16.50 for sky movies = £74 a month.
BT Base package which gets you the box + freeview and 20 channels £5, Kids channels £3, Netflix Dowload library £6 Sport = Free. Total = £14 per month.
You can only watch one channel a month and if you are a family you don't get that much time to watch TV so a no brainer.
@Paul_Mid_Beds Not a bad excuse to go round and see one of your old bachelor friends for the evening. The cost in beer might not make it viable though?
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
Sky's other interesting hook up was buying out Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland.
I'm dubious about quad play. Do you really want your landline, broadband, mobile phone and TV to come from one subscriber.
Imagine there's a technical problem and you're left without all four. I'd be going bat shit crazy.
I know it appeals for some, because theoretically costs would be lower with quad play
I don't know. I can see the attraction of getting up in the morning, reading the Times on my iPad via my home wireless, then as i leave it switch over to cellphone provider. Then when out and about it switches to hotspot provider. If I am on the tube, I can then watch the best programs, live sport, get instant goal highlights etc.
If all that is seamless operation and I get one bill, that is very attractive to me. If it goes tits-up, well that's another story.
I think I'm letting my recent experiences with EE colour my judgement.
I had four contracts with them, and their billing became a nightmare.
The buggers cut me off at one point!
I've got four mobiles, landline, broadband plus gas and electricity all on one bill with Utility Warehouse and never have a problem.
BT will start to roll out fibre to premise rather than to the cabinet and copper to premise, they have to so they can compete with Virgin speed.
"Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees"
Why aren't Labour threatening an enormous licence fee on them like the 3G that almost single handedly paid off the UK deficit. And as an added bonus it'll be coming out of Rupert's pocket......
It did didnt it. It is remarkable to think just how robust the public finances were in about 2001-2003.
They've just had an item on an auction held by the Tories for their election coffers. Someone paid £210,000 for a bronze bust of the queen of tat herself. Isn't there a limit to how much an individual can donate and is it possible that an auction gets round it?
They've just had an item on an auction held by the Tories for their election coffers. Someone paid £210,000 for a bronze bust of the queen of tat herself. Isn't there a limit to how much an individual can donate and is it possible that an auction gets round it?
It was the £17 grand paid to go shoe shopping with Theresa May that got me
"This is clearly just another divisive gimmick that the electorate will see through".
Responding to the criticism, Labour's women's and equalities spokesman Gloria De Piero said the van's livery was "the same colour" as the party had used as the backdrop for its 2014 autumn conference in Manchester.
She tweeted: "Glad everyone is talking about the Labour women's bus!"
They've just had an item on an auction held by the Tories for their election coffers. Someone paid £210,000 for a bronze bust of the queen of tat herself. Isn't there a limit to how much an individual can donate and is it possible that an auction gets round it?
It was the £17 grand paid to go shoe shopping with Theresa May that got me
OK, who cares about pink vans - Australia are going to be in the next Eurovision!! Paging TSE....
Oh my. Then again we let Israel in.
Yeah, but they are at least in the European Broadcasting Union!
With Australia an 'associate member' apparently, even as a one off inclusion in the Eurovision, perhaps other associate members such as Iran, Syria and Japan can compete in future years, as seems to be their intention.
I'm all for it - at its best the whole thing can be silly fun, so why not include absolutely anyone I guess.
The problem for the Coalition is they originally promised to sort out the deficit by the end of this year, the fact Osborne is signalling 3 or 4 more years of cuts means Labour can be less reliably blamed for the cuts as each year goes by
Osbo
If the public wanted its understanding of the 'deficit' reduced sooner it should have been screaming for more cuts sooner.
Fairly or not, we've almost reached the limit of public patience with cuts.
Indeed. Peoples' reluctance at anything too severe, and the weakened economy, may well be perfectly legitimate reasons why the cuts have been dragged out for so long, but as you say people will paradoxically lose patience with it being dragged out. As the economy picks up, I suspect they will also feel less need to be restrained, to fix the roof while the sun is shining, and so not care as much about who says they can cuts the most the most fairly.
It's frustrating watching Labour collecting more ammunition than they could use in five elections and not having anyone with the ability to work the firing mechanism.
This tax avoidance and Cameron's part in it is literally the golden bullet. The Tories can have no answer to it yet all I see is the two Eds fannying around kissing the backsides of any businessman who walks into shot.
Whoever was in charge at the time this is a disaster for the Tories not for Labour
Its faded from the news channels today to be replaced by Ed Miliband avoiding the British Chambers of Commerce Annual Conference despite being within 200 yards of the Conference Centre and this evening by a 'Pink' battle bus driven by Harriet. You couldn't make it up!!!!
"In affectionate remembrance of English pop music which died at the Eurovision Song Contest 2015. Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances. RIP. NB. The body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia."
@GeneralBoles: Tabloid photographers sole mission in life is to get a pic of the broken down pink van being repaired by White Van Dan as Harman looks on.
"Unlike their GB polls which are now done online, TNS’s Scottish polls are still done using face-to-face interviews. This means the fieldwork tends to take significantly longer, and the polls are then often not reported until a week or so later. The fieldwork for this poll was conducted between the 14th January and the 2nd February. This means the Survation and MORI polls from last month which showed 20 point and 28 point SNP leads for the SNP had fieldwork done at the same time as the start of this poll."
At last some sense on TNS - why didn't we read it here?
They've just had an item on an auction held by the Tories for their election coffers. Someone paid £210,000 for a bronze bust of the queen of tat herself. Isn't there a limit to how much an individual can donate and is it possible that an auction gets round it?
Roger.. are you being paid to write the crap that you do by Labour HQ??/.. If so carry on.. but you forget that the blessed Margaret saved us from 5 yrs of Sunny Jim and then Foot and then Kinnock.
The only leader Labour had of any substance was John Smith who sadly died.
If had been wealthy and as a Fan of Maggie Thatcher, I would have bought that bust.
@GeneralBoles: Tabloid photographers sole mission in life is to get a pic of the broken down pink van being repaired by White Van Dan as Harman looks on.
It's odd that Labour always feel compelled to treat women differently. Are they trying to create an obvious divide?
They've just had an item on an auction held by the Tories for their election coffers. Someone paid £210,000 for a bronze bust of the queen of tat herself. Isn't there a limit to how much an individual can donate and is it possible that an auction gets round it?
There aren't limits on personal donations in the UK. If there were, the rich donors may be tempted to unionise....
Apparently there was a BBC Woman's Hour poll done by TNS-BRMB giving Labour an 11% lead and putting them on 39% at the end of January. It was completely out of line with all other polls carried out at the time:
Apparently there was a BBC Woman's Hour poll done by TNS-BRMB giving Labour an 11% lead and putting them on 39% at the end of January. It was completely out of line with all other polls carried out at the time:
Yes, we went over that at the time, and Number Cruncher got confirmation from TNS-BRMB that it hadn't been politically weighted. Unfortunately the Wikipedians are following process rather than using common sense.
Will gays and greys be getting their own Labour battle buses?
Soon there will be a whole fleet, or a caravan. So hot pink for wimmin, grey for old farts, rainbow for LGBT. Green for environmentalists. What colour(s) for new immigrants, union folk, students, public sector employees, teachers, health workers etc... I mean, surely there should be a bus for each of the interest groups?
Will gays and greys be getting their own Labour battle buses?
Soon there will be a whole fleet, or a caravan. So hot pink for wimmin, grey for old farts, rainbow for LGBT. Green for environmentalists. What colour(s) for new immigrants?
Will gays and greys be getting their own Labour battle buses?
Soon there will be a whole fleet, or a caravan. So hot pink for wimmin, grey for old farts, rainbow for LGBT. Green for environmentalists. What colour(s) for new immigrants?
Will gays and greys be getting their own Labour battle buses?
Soon there will be a whole fleet, or a caravan. So hot pink for wimmin, grey for old farts, rainbow for LGBT. Green for environmentalists. What colour(s) for new immigrants, union folk, students, public sector employees, teachers, health workers etc... I mean, surely there should be a bus for each of the interest groups?
They should do it like the publicity caravan for Le Tour de France where they throw freebies out to people at the side of the road.
As we've been saying for ages on PB. There could be a big swing to Labour in the major metropolitan areas, but many of the marginal seats are in market/cathedral/new towns like Worcester, Gloucester, Loughborough, Lancaster, Cannock, Harlow, Crawley where the swing could be much lower for various reasons.
Apparently there was a BBC Woman's Hour poll done by TNS-BRMB giving Labour an 11% lead and putting them on 39% at the end of January. It was completely out of line with all other polls carried out at the time:
Yes, we went over that at the time, and Number Cruncher got confirmation from TNS-BRMB that it hadn't been politically weighted. Unfortunately the Wikipedians are following process rather than using common sense.
Will gays and greys be getting their own Labour battle buses?
Soon there will be a whole fleet, or a caravan. So hot pink for wimmin, grey for old farts, rainbow for LGBT. Green for environmentalists. What colour(s) for new immigrants, union folk, students, public sector employees, teachers, health workers etc... I mean, surely there should be a bus for each of the interest groups?
They should do it like the publicity caravan for Le Tour de France where they throw freebies out to people at the side of the road.
Apparently there was a BBC Woman's Hour poll done by TNS-BRMB giving Labour an 11% lead and putting them on 39% at the end of January. It was completely out of line with all other polls carried out at the time:
Yes, we went over that at the time, and Number Cruncher got confirmation from TNS-BRMB that it hadn't been politically weighted. Unfortunately the Wikipedians are following process rather than using common sense.
I wonder if I should keep it in my google doc (which hasn't been updated recently in any case).
I can't believe we have descended to Pinkvangate. Is there no real politics left to discuss?
You mean that hasn't blown over in the last four hours?
This is all the fault of fixed-term Parliaments. If it weren't for the fact that we know the election will certainly be on 7th May we would all be occupied with speculation on when the election would be called.
Comments
Magenta is not a colour that emits light of its own but reflects light from its surroundings.
On the other hand Labour may be onto something all you cynics are missing.
If you are into the mystical vibration of energy then Magenta -
is the colour of the 8th chakra - " The Soul Star " - residing just outside the physical body, and above the head.
the metaphor for Absolution of Duality
is the closest connection to the God-Head possible - so maybe the van marks the much heralded return to planet earth of Blair.
However just as I was reading that magenta is - 'an instrument of change and transformation; it helps to release old emotional patterns that prevent personal and spiritual development and aids us in moving forward' (which almost had me loving big brother) - I stumbled into a problem.
Magenta 'can promote depression and despair in some, and prevent others from dealing with challenges - it may be just too relaxing for introverts and the chronically depressed.'
and
'Being surrounded by too much magenta energy can generate arrogance and bossiness making us feel overwhelmed, irritated, anxious and intolerant.'
Lets go with 'pink'.
http://esctoday.com/95485/eurovision-2015-australia-joins-eurovision-vienna/
Greens finally admit a thousand members have not paid up | @MrSteerpike http://specc.ie/1AT57qv via @spectator
The whole inflated Green membership scam is beginning to come undone. First 1,000 then.............
"Sky and BT Sport pay £5.136bn to show live Premier League football between 2016 and 2019 - a 71% increase on the current deal."
What madness is this? From whence comes all this gold? If gold it is, as opposed to paper.
Gordon Brown was running a structural deficit of 5% of GDP in the pre-2008 good times.
''Many people think that in 2010 he pledged to eliminate the budget deficit by the May 2015 election. That is not the case. The aim was to get the so-called cyclically-adjusted current budget deficit down to zero (and beyond), but public sector net borrowing – the overall deficit – was predicted to be 2.1% of gross domestic product this year, 2014-15''
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html
'there has been slippage''
but
''as the IFS points out, was that official estimates of the size of the “structural” budget deficit – that which is not dependent on the economic cycle – increased between 2010 and the end of 2012. Osborne could have tried to compensate for that underlying deterioration but chose instead to defer the additional deficit reduction needed until the next parliament.''
''There are therefore three components to Britain’s deficit problem. There was the structural deficit Labour was running before the crisis, estimated to be between 3.9% and 5.3% of GDP. There was the increase in that deficit as a result of the crisis, and there was the further deterioration when it became clear that the supply-side of the economy – and productivity growth – had been damaged.''
If the public wanted its understanding of the 'deficit' reduced sooner it should have been screaming for more cuts sooner.
Seems quite astute from BT, they will have paid about £1.5 billion for their 2 out of 7 packages which they are big enough to absorb. Probably good enough for them as hardcore sports fans will be unlikely to leave sky for BT but families who don't fancy coughing up for sky sports package will still get some footy.
Hopefully BT might get some cricket test matches soon.
I had an employee who came in one day to report he was signed off and unfit for work. He had his arm in a sling and bandages around his neck.
As a good employer I enquired about his problem.
"Oh it was the wife,she caught me unawares,she was waiting behind the door when I came in from the pub. She had an axe and laid into me,but I tell you ,I have had enough now,she has gone too far this time."
This is a genuine recollection of the conversation,the employee involved did not think it was too unusual,he was used to being attacked,but the axe was a bit too much for him.
BT won't get any test matches, Sky signed that up a few weeks ago, as well as ICC tournaments. They also show the IPL this year.
BT won't have a pot to piss in.
They overpaid from Champs League rights starting from this autumn, they are also paying over £10 bn for EE.
All this means, if you have Sky your bills are going up, ditto if you're a BT customer.
As of last year Sky had 10.61 million subscribers. Assuming that 2/3rds of them have Sky Sports, thats 7.1 million sky sports subscribers.
Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees. That leaves £8.75 per month of a £24.50 sky sports subscription left for all the other sporting rights fees plus the cost of actually running the statio, doing the filming and profit.
Meanwhile BT give football away free with their Broadband.
Ouch.
This tax avoidance and Cameron's part in it is literally the golden bullet. The Tories can have no answer to it yet all I see is the two Eds fannying around kissing the backsides of any businessman who walks into shot.
Whoever was in charge at the time this is a disaster for the Tories not for Labour
I do believe the Tories/Dave'n'George's lead over Labour/The 2 Eds on who is best to run the British economy is getting wider.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2948024/Labour-s-Harriet-Harman-launches-bid-win-female-voters-women-election-battle-bus-painted-PINK.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
Coming for her soon, journalists from The Mash.
Dont think that they thought that one through.
PS - havent the Mail put a caption about Harman with a photo of Theresa May.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Vote Liblabcon, get Liblabcon.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/pink-bus-labour-women-mps-kitchen-table-tour-female-voters
I think the problem is the golden bullet is more of a communal golden shower
My prediction, Jason Donovan will win the Eurovision song contest in 2016.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewers when it is free, what is going to happen when they try to charge everybody £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
Yeah I know before the lefties burst into pixels ....it's OGH train set and he can go round the track which ever direction he wants etc etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6729588/Labour-MP-ban-shops-from-selling-sexist-pink-toys-to-little-girls.html
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
I'm dubious about quad play. Do you really want your landline, broadband, mobile phone and TV to come from one subscriber.
Imagine there's a technical problem and you're left without all four. I'd be going bat shit crazy.
I know it appeals for some, because theoretically costs would be lower with quad play.
BT need some proper TV content, because I don't think people will pay for just their sports. They'll want more.
Edit BT Broadband is pretty decent now. I'm get around 60mbs
If all that is seamless operation and I get one bill, that is very attractive to me. The cost saving (or not) isn't that important to me tbh, it is the convenience and content that would be the real seller.
If it goes tits-up, well that's another story.
I had four contracts with them, and their billing became a nightmare.
The buggers cut me off at one point!
"Divide £1.3billion by £7.1 million and you get £183 per year, so £15.25 per month per subscriber just for football fees"
Why aren't Labour threatening an enormous licence fee on them like the 3G that almost single handedly paid off the UK deficit. And as an added bonus it'll be coming out of Rupert's pocket......
BT Base package which gets you the box + freeview and 20 channels £5, Kids channels £3, Netflix Dowload library £6 Sport = Free. Total = £14 per month.
You can only watch one channel a month and if you are a family you don't get that much time to watch TV so a no brainer.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/labour-to-reach-women-with-a-barbie-bus/
Not a bad excuse to go round and see one of your old bachelor friends for the evening.
The cost in beer might not make it viable though?
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Vote Liblabcon, get Liblabcon.
Is there a danger of BT getting a very bloody nose? If they can't get viewer when it is free, what is going to happen when they have to charge £10-20/month for BT sports to cover the cost of buying champions league and premiership rights? ITV Digital anyone?
That's the fear for them.
They think Quadplay is the way to go.
There's consolidation in the sectors.
The owners of Three are on the verge of buying out o2.
Vodafone bought out Cable & Wireless and are looking into buying Virgin.
Sky have hooked up with the owners of o2 in providing a MVNO
Quad play is the way to go, that is why Murdoch wanted Sky / NI merger. A little known fact he had bought up one of the biggest wireless hotspot operators and no surprise the hook-up with cellphone provider. But BT don't have the news / media arm, nor the reach in high quality programming / movies i.e Think Sky Atlantic for instance.
What BT has in comparison is second rate content, ok broadband (not as good as Virgin), and will need to shell out mega bucks to get back O2 or EE.
Sky's other interesting hook up was buying out Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland.
I'm dubious about quad play. Do you really want your landline, broadband, mobile phone and TV to come from one subscriber.
Imagine there's a technical problem and you're left without all four. I'd be going bat shit crazy.
I know it appeals for some, because theoretically costs would be lower with quad play
I don't know. I can see the attraction of getting up in the morning, reading the Times on my iPad via my home wireless, then as i leave it switch over to cellphone provider. Then when out and about it switches to hotspot provider. If I am on the tube, I can then watch the best programs, live sport, get instant goal highlights etc.
If all that is seamless operation and I get one bill, that is very attractive to me. If it goes tits-up, well that's another story.
I think I'm letting my recent experiences with EE colour my judgement.
I had four contracts with them, and their billing became a nightmare.
The buggers cut me off at one point!
I've got four mobiles, landline, broadband plus gas and electricity all on one bill with Utility Warehouse and never have a problem.
BT will start to roll out fibre to premise rather than to the cabinet and copper to premise, they have to so they can compete with Virgin speed.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/ukip-the-first-100-days
How dare you impune the good name of our politicians Sirah!
"This is clearly just another divisive gimmick that the electorate will see through".
Responding to the criticism, Labour's women's and equalities spokesman Gloria De Piero said the van's livery was "the same colour" as the party had used as the backdrop for its 2014 autumn conference in Manchester.
She tweeted: "Glad everyone is talking about the Labour women's bus!"
With Australia an 'associate member' apparently, even as a one off inclusion in the Eurovision, perhaps other associate members such as Iran, Syria and Japan can compete in future years, as seems to be their intention.
I'm all for it - at its best the whole thing can be silly fun, so why not include absolutely anyone I guess.
JackW's better half must be the top suspect?
They are going to rename it the Quiet Batmobile...
Hell we even had an Aussie represent us in the Eurovision Song Contest
@GeneralBoles: Tabloid photographers sole mission in life is to get a pic of the broken down pink van being repaired by White Van Dan as Harman looks on.
"Unlike their GB polls which are now done online, TNS’s Scottish polls are still done using face-to-face interviews. This means the fieldwork tends to take significantly longer, and the polls are then often not reported until a week or so later. The fieldwork for this poll was conducted between the 14th January and the 2nd February. This means the Survation and MORI polls from last month which showed 20 point and 28 point SNP leads for the SNP had fieldwork done at the same time as the start of this poll."
At last some sense on TNS - why didn't we read it here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRUUdqkLPlw
' Someone paid £210,000 for a bronze bust of the queen of tat herself'
Don't be so rude about a former PM's wife.
The only leader Labour had of any substance was John Smith who sadly died.
If had been wealthy and as a Fan of Maggie Thatcher, I would have bought that bust.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/10/police-several-forces-seek-details-charlie-hebdo-readers
Nice to know they haven't anything more important to do...
@GeneralBoles: Tabloid photographers sole mission in life is to get a pic of the broken down pink van being repaired by White Van Dan as Harman looks on.
It's odd that Labour always feel compelled to treat women differently. Are they trying to create an obvious divide?
It's quite simple - treat everyone as equals.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/ukpr-projection-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-not-to-run-for-president-20150206
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/02/uniform-swing-can-misleading-even-within-england.html/
Anyone discovered buying it will be recorded on some 'hate crimes' list.
-------------
Anyway lets talk about the Greens:
Vicky @2tweetaboutit 25m25 minutes ago
Greens finally admit a thousand members have not paid up | @MrSteerpike http://specc.ie/1AT57qv via @spectator
The whole inflated Green membership scam is beginning to come undone. First 1,000 then.............
This is all the fault of fixed-term Parliaments. If it weren't for the fact that we know the election will certainly be on 7th May we would all be occupied with speculation on when the election would be called.