The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
It's not so much antagonise but I thought that BBC News' health crisis watch was some of the most intellectually and presentationally biased broadcasting that I'd seen in a long time (at least on a news programme which, as we've seen in their depiction of ISIS properly sees itself as neutral. That it didn't work is, of course, the problem that the BBC now faces.
R5 had some great examples of being left with nothing to say after trailing for a week some Recession Apocalypse Day a few years ago.
The ONS announced that the figures were better than expected, and the presenters were literally lost for words and spent the next 5hrs trying to find nits to pick.
I used to listen to R5 about 10hrs a day and finally gave in around 2012 as it was so lobsided.
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....
It's not so much antagonise but I thought that BBC News' health crisis watch was some of the most intellectually and presentationally biased broadcasting that I'd seen in a long time (at least on a news programme which, as we've seen in their depiction of ISIS properly sees itself as neutral. That it didn't work is, of course, the problem that the BBC now faces.
OT _ can see no reason to give a free licence to anyone. However, I also think broadcasting, like the rest of the media should be free from central control with it's funding determined by the market. Everyone keeps saying the BBC is good - let's see that hypothesis tested by the market. Having seen other broadcasters I personally think it is like our revered NHS - no longer [if it ever was] - primus inter pares.
I would allow the BBC to advertise during its most popular programmes like Strictly, Eastenders and the Olympics and Wimbledon to make them largely self-funding. However I would keep licence fee funding for highbrow cultural and scientific and current affairs programmes and also give some of that money to other broadcasters too
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
Mike is right: however you look at it, it is absolutely barmy that any household with someone over 75 in it gets this freebie. One of Gordon Brown's many measures aimed at pouring public money down the drain, and (like many such Brown lunacies) hard for sane governments to fix.
Osborne's response is, as Mike says, politically smart in shoving the problem over to the Beeb, but it's also a nifty way of effectively pushing the Beeb into becoming a bit more efficient. There's plenty of scope for that, of course.
As for the licence fee model itself, it is a truth universally acknowledged that it has been overtaken by technological and social change. It was a model designed for a handful of monopoly or near-monopoly terrestrial channels, so it was originally something like a subscription to the BBC's output. Now we live in a very different world. At the last charter renewal, the then Labour government said that they thought this was the last time the licence fee model would be renewed, but it's not politically straightforward to change it.
Probably the new move to charge for iPlayer content is the beginning of a gradual shift away from the licence fee, and that this will be the way things evolve rather than a sudden end to the model altogether.
So what if a person wants to fund a television channel to promote their influence at a loss? No one is forced to watch it, and it is always open to others to set up channels with better content to attract viewers.
The problem with pure market models is that they introduce a bias to the wealthy, which doesn't matter much in the sale of Porsches - if Porsche salesrooms take up more space than Corsa salesrooms, there are still plenty of places to buy a Corsa. But there aren't many national TV channels (could you afford to set one up?), and with something as fundamental to democracy as provision of news about what is in fact happening, it's reasonable for the Government to make an effort to ensure a non-partisan flow of data to the population. I agree with your earlier point that this does't necessarily have to be through the BBC, and with Richard N's point that Government subsidies for multiple providers would be a reasonable alternative.
The Swedish model for print media also works up to a point - advertising is subject to a tax which is used to subsidise papers for newspapers with an unusual opinion, thereby maintaining a variety of choices for consumers regardless of affluence. A Trotskyist newspaper opposing democracy and favouring dictatorship of the proletariat was an interesting test case - they got the subsidy, on the basis that this was, indeed, an unusual opinion. I've never been sure if that was an example of democracy as wonderful or bonkers.
On the issue of the BBC's bias, I would love to see a polling of the political preferences of their editorial and journalistic staff. I know many people who work at the BBC, and while I've met several Green supporters among them, I've never met one further right than a Cameroon Tory.
@DanHannanMEP: The only sober speech comes from @ecrgroup's Ryszard Legutko. "Whom do we want to save? Greece, the EU, creditors? We can't save them all."
I think Francois Hollande let the cat out of the bag yesterday – the Euro comes first.
From the point of view of European leaders, of course it does.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
1. Banking and IT systems would need to be changed all over Europe. 2. There would bank runs as people tried to take money out of banks in countries where successor currencies would likely be weak 3. Would government debts be moved to a basket of currencies or to a national one? 4. What about cross border debts?
As most politicians only care about the next election, the result is an adhocracy. What gets us through the next three months? What will be most popular back home?
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
It's not the unions job to reflect public sentiment, it's their job to get the best deal for the members. I'd suggest the tube driver salary suggests they've done a pretty decent job.
Mike is right: however you look at it, it is absolutely barmy that any household with someone over 75 in it gets this freebie. One of Gordon Brown's many measures aimed at pouring public money down the drain, and (like many such Brown lunacies) hard for sane governments to fix.
Osborne's response is, as Mike says, politically smart in shoving the problem over to the Beeb, but it's also a nifty way of effectively pushing the Beeb into becoming a bit more efficient. There's plenty of scope for that, of course.
So what if a person wants to fund a television channel to promote their influence at a loss? No one is forced to watch it, and it is always open to others to set up channels with better content to attract viewers.
The problem with pure market models is that they introduce a bias to the wealthy, which doesn't matter much in the sale of Porsches - if Porsche salesrooms take up more space than Corsa salesrooms, there are still plenty of places to buy a Corsa. But there aren't many national TV channels(could you afford to set one up?), and with something as fundamental to democracy as provision of news about what is in fact happening, it's reasonable for the Government to make an effort to ensure a non-partisan flow of data to the population. I agree
That's not correct, because markets are consumer led. Media channels are forced to follow the tastes of the audience, and there's a lot more poor viewers of television than rich viewers of television. If you had a channel that constantly supported abolishing the NHS and a flat tax, then they would struggle to ever get beyond a niche market.
Plenty of former BBC journalists and directors admit to the left-leaning bias at the organization, but the BBC always claims it is "scrupulously impartial". I think we are reaching the point where it's clear that the organization will never be unbiased.
So what if a person wants to fund a television channel to promote their influence at a loss? No one is forced to watch it, and it is always open to others to set up channels with better content to attract viewers.
The problem with pure market models is that they introduce a bias to the wealthy, which doesn't matter much in the sale of Porsches - if Porsche salesrooms take up more space than Corsa salesrooms, there are still plenty of places to buy a Corsa. But there aren't many national TV channels(could you afford to set one up?), and with something as fundamental to democracy as provision of news about what is in fact happening, it's reasonable for the Government to make an effort to ensure a non-partisan flow of data to the population. I agree
That was a sensible argument when there were three TV channels. There are now hundreds. And the youth of today increasingly gets their TV through YouTube, Amazon and Netflix.
The BBC should concentrate on commissioning (not making) a limited number of programmes where the market does not deliver. Largely educational and arts shows I would have thought. These could then be sold to commercial broadcasters and/or delivered on-line.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), even if they wanted to, would they be allowed to change it?
In the interests of "fairness" and "social justice" - is it right that millionaires with millionaire grannies in their granny flats are subsidising hard working working class families ?
In the interests of "fairness" and "social justice" - is it right that millionaires with millionaire grannies in their granny flats are subsidising hard working working class families ?
How could the BBC operate such an injust system ?
Yes, I suspect that the editorial coverage on this will rather change....
I didn't know that any household with a 75yrs old could have free telly. When Gordon pitched it - he said that it was to fill the isolation hole that lonely pensioners experienced.
Well, that's clearly rubbish from a policy framing perspective given the actualite.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), even if they wanted to, would they be allowed to change it?
In the interests of "fairness" and "social justice" - is it right that millionaires with millionaire grannies in their granny flats are subsidising hard working working class families ?
Mr. Nabavi, I can see why it's good for Germany, giving them a weaker currency than would be the case with the Deutschmark means they get an export boost.
As for the others, Stockholm Syndrome, prestige, a feeling of belonging, and being downright deranged probably explain their views.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
I'm currently in Spain, and it is amazing how enthusiastic people here are about the Euro. (Although I wonder if I was in Andalucia rather than Madrid whether it would be the same.)
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
I'm currently in Spain, and it is amazing how enthusiastic people here are about the Euro. (Although I wonder if I was in Andalucia rather than Madrid whether it would be the same.)
Offer them a 30-50% drop in their standard of living as a cost of keeping the Euro, and their enthusiasm might fade a bit...
Mr. Nabavi, I can see why it's good for Germany, giving them a weaker currency than would be the case with the Deutschmark means they get an export boost.
As for the others, Stockholm Syndrome, prestige, a feeling of belonging, and being downright deranged probably explain their views.
Miss Plato, cheers for that answer.
I was told yesterday that something like 80% of Spaniards think the Euro is good for Spain.
Don't forget, if you look at change in employed persons from the beginning of the Euro (1/1/99) to now, then you get quite surprising numbers. Off the top of my head it's something like:
Ireland +23% Spain +16% Germany +11% Italy + 9% UK +8% France +8% Greece -20%
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
I'm currently in Spain, and it is amazing how enthusiastic people here are about the Euro. (Although I wonder if I was in Andalucia rather than Madrid whether it would be the same.)
Offer them a 30-50% drop in their standard of living as a cost of keeping the Euro, and their enthusiasm might fade a bit...
Why would they have a 30-50% drop in their standard of living? I don't understand your comment.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
I'm currently in Spain, and it is amazing how enthusiastic people here are about the Euro. (Although I wonder if I was in Andalucia rather than Madrid whether it would be the same.)
Offer them a 30-50% drop in their standard of living as a cost of keeping the Euro, and their enthusiasm might fade a bit...
Why would they have a 30-50% drop in their standard of living? I don't understand your comment.
Its what the Greeks have swallowed in the last five years as their price for staying in the Euro ?
... Osborne's response is, as Mike says, politically smart in shoving the problem over to the Beeb, but it's also a nifty way of effectively pushing the Beeb into becoming a bit more efficient. ...
The decision whether to give free licences to the over 75s, and the conditions thereof (e.g. applies if just one person in a household is over 75) is political, and the Beeb cannot change that.
Not sure if people saw Dispatches last night, but pulled the curtain back on more idiotic behaviour of councils, taking out loans over the past 10 years with stupid interest rates. Newham (theres a shock) has £600 million in loans, charging up to 7.6%.
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
It's not the unions job to reflect public sentiment, it's their job to get the best deal for the members. I'd suggest the tube driver salary suggests they've done a pretty decent job.
That was largely the achievement of the late Bob Crow, however the more tube drivers complain, the more costly they become, the faster they hasten their own extinction and the move to automation
A complete win win for George on this. Cut the amount central government pays to BBC by a significant lump, which helps the deficit. The BBC shouldn't be immune from real cuts, but it is very hard to deliver them apart from below inflation rises in the TVLF.
It shows how vast the BBC income is. If the BBC complain they have to do less, then there is a very simple way to help them, sell off Radio 1, 2, 5, 6 or whatever and BBC 3, 4
Mr. 1000, and yet the single currency's been in crisis for about a third of its existence.
Yes: the Euro was appalling badly designed. In particular, it missed that some countries development models were built around inflexible labour markets offset by constant depreciation and inflation.
But that's all a bit by-the-by. Europe has it now. And they will do what they have to do to keep it, because the costs of breaking it are greater than the costs of keeping it.
The decision whether to give free licences to the over 75s, and the conditions thereof (e.g. applies if just one person in a household is over 75) is political, and the Beeb cannot change that.
They can't currently change it, but Osborne signalled that that would be changed in the future.
In any case, there's a big difference between a change which the BBC will now be lobbying for, and a change which they would in their normal way be vehemently opposing (as they oppose all moves to save public money).
What has Nick Watt done to his hair?! He looks like he's wearing a small toupe hat of brown over a pepper and salt one. He's on Sky if you don't believe me.
Mr. 1000, the immediate pain is greater, but doing nothing will be worse in the long run. When the eurozone crumbles it'll cause more devastation the more closely integrated and prolonged its existence is.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
I'm currently in Spain, and it is amazing how enthusiastic people here are about the Euro. (Although I wonder if I was in Andalucia rather than Madrid whether it would be the same.)
Offer them a 30-50% drop in their standard of living as a cost of keeping the Euro, and their enthusiasm might fade a bit...
Why would they have a 30-50% drop in their standard of living? I don't understand your comment.
Its what the Greeks have swallowed in the last five years as their price for staying in the Euro ?
Why should Spain have similar? Spain's economy will grow close to 4% this year. The economy will create close to a million new jobs (as they should given their unemployment rate). Spain's government debt-to-GDP (which is half the level of Greece) will fall this year. Exports from Spain haver grown more than 70% in the last six years. And - unlike last time - this is being done with a current account surplus, and with consumer and corporate debt declining.
Not sure if people saw Dispatches last night, but pulled the curtain back on more idiotic behaviour of councils, taking out loans over the past 10 years with stupid interest rates. Newham (theres a shock) has £600 million in loans, charging up to 7.6%.
Do none of them remember Hammersmith & Fulham's disastrous dabble in financial instruments in the '80s
They were on the hook for a loss of about $600 million on sterling interest rate swaps and options in 1988, until the courts ruled in their favour, and declared the deals to be null and void.
Jersey's sports minister has apologised for wasting around £1,000 of taxpayers' money after he mistakenly flew to Budapest instead of Bucharest and missed a global event
Jersey's sports minister has apologised for wasting around £1,000 of taxpayers' money after he mistakenly flew to Budapest instead of Bucharest and missed a global event
Mr. 1000, the immediate pain is greater, but doing nothing will be worse in the long run. When the eurozone crumbles it'll cause more devastation the more closely integrated and prolonged its existence is.
Why? The cost of breaking up in a disorganised fashion will always be horrible. It's not clear why it would be more in 10 years time than now.
Not only that, but you miss my point about this being an adhocracy. There will always be a good reason to kick the can down the road.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
I'm currently in Spain, and it is amazing how enthusiastic people here are about the Euro. (Although I wonder if I was in Andalucia rather than Madrid whether it would be the same.)
Offer them a 30-50% drop in their standard of living as a cost of keeping the Euro, and their enthusiasm might fade a bit...
Why would they have a 30-50% drop in their standard of living? I don't understand your comment.
Its what the Greeks have swallowed in the last five years as their price for staying in the Euro ?
Why should Spain have similar? Spain's economy will grow close to 4% this year. The economy will create close to a million new jobs (as they should given their unemployment rate). Spain's government debt-to-GDP (which is half the level of Greece) will fall this year. Exports from Spain haver grown more than 70% in the last six years. And - unlike last time - this is being done with a current account surplus, and with consumer and corporate debt declining.
If only the Greeks would leave/get dumped out the Euro !!
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
It's not the unions job to reflect public sentiment, it's their job to get the best deal for the members. I'd suggest the tube driver salary suggests they've done a pretty decent job.
That was largely the achievement of the late Bob Crow, however the more tube drivers complain, the more costly they become, the faster they hasten their own extinction and the move to automation
Well as a daily user of the Northern Line, I look forward to automation, although the unions will fight it with more strikes, depends if TFL are up for that fight...
Mr. Nabavi, I can see why it's good for Germany, giving them a weaker currency than would be the case with the Deutschmark means they get an export boost.
As for the others, Stockholm Syndrome, prestige, a feeling of belonging, and being downright deranged probably explain their views.
Miss Plato, cheers for that answer.
There's also the issue that the people it's good for is mainly being the beneficiaries of the flip side of the coin from the impoverished south. If you are currently one of the less undervalued economies (e.g. France), then it's currently working out fairly well for you. However, were Spain, Greece etc not in the Euro, then you would become one of the overvalued economies and it would be bad for you. That's why the logic of "let's keep it for the nations it is good for" doesn't work.
F1: if you don't mind locking your money up for a few months and want 7% interest, the top 6 Drivers (title) market on Betfair has 1.07 for Bottas, Raikkonen and Massa to finish top 6.
It is possible one of them could get ill or break a leg and enable someone else to leapfrog them. However, their cars appear to be substantially better than those behind them.
(4th and down): Bottas 77 Raikkonen 76 Massa 74 -------- Ricciardo 36 Kvyat 27 Hulkenberg 24
With top places likely Mercedes-dominated and lower teams unlikely to break into the top 5-6 at races, this diminishes their ability to rack up large points to decrease the 38 points deficit from Ricciardo to Massa (let along the 52 points from Hulkenberg to Bottas).
Not something I'll be doing myself (had to reduce my Betfair stakes due to my account there getting a bit anorexic), but I thought I'd flag it up for those of you who have more obese wallets. Last race this year is on 29 November, though I'd guess this market would be effectively done a few races earlier.
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
It's not the unions job to reflect public sentiment, it's their job to get the best deal for the members. I'd suggest the tube driver salary suggests they've done a pretty decent job.
That was largely the achievement of the late Bob Crow, however the more tube drivers complain, the more costly they become, the faster they hasten their own extinction and the move to automation
I was actually referring to the FGW strike, but now you come to mention it....
If I were in a job that could soon be replaced by automation very easily, I would create as little fuss as possible and hope that people wouldn't be wondering how fast-tracked that replacement could be.
Mr. 1000, the immediate pain is greater, but doing nothing will be worse in the long run. When the eurozone crumbles it'll cause more devastation the more closely integrated and prolonged its existence is.
Why? The cost of breaking up in a disorganised fashion will always be horrible. It's not clear why it would be more in 10 years time than now.
Not only that, but you miss my point about this being an adhocracy. There will always be a good reason to kick the can down the road.
The Eurozone is fine, so long as all the Gov't operate broadly Osborne/ Merkelonics methinks. It can even cope with the French. I'm convinced that if the Greeks exit then it would be better for all.
Do none of them remember Hammersmith & Fulham's disastrous dabble in financial instruments in the '80s
They were on the hook for a loss of about $600 million on sterling interest rate swaps and options in 1988, until the courts ruled in their favour, and declared the deals to be null and void.
A quite extraordinarily profitable time for lawyers, first in the public law proceedings in Hazell, then in the proceedings by the banks for restitution. From memory, the consequences of the local authorities' gambling went to the House of Lords five times.
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
It's not the unions job to reflect public sentiment, it's their job to get the best deal for the members. I'd suggest the tube driver salary suggests they've done a pretty decent job.
That was largely the achievement of the late Bob Crow, however the more tube drivers complain, the more costly they become, the faster they hasten their own extinction and the move to automation
I was actually referring to the FGW strike, but now you come to mention it....
If I were in a job that could soon be replaced by automation very easily, I would create as little fuss as possible and hope that people wouldn't be wondering how fast-tracked that replacement could be.
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
It's not the unions job to reflect public sentiment, it's their job to get the best deal for the members. I'd suggest the tube driver salary suggests they've done a pretty decent job.
That was largely the achievement of the late Bob Crow, however the more tube drivers complain, the more costly they become, the faster they hasten their own extinction and the move to automation
Well as a daily user of the Northern Line, I look forward to automation, although the unions will fight it with more strikes, depends if TFL are up for that fight...
Given tube drivers are now on £50,000 a year and spend much of their time on strike TFL may soon be left with little alternative
The Gods are against my doing any work today: a cold, the budget, Wimbledon, and the test match simletaneously.
....and then I need to get to Bristol tomorrow.
Do the RMT think that striking gets them sympathy? Bonkers in today's consumer led economy.
Especially when the average tube driver is paid £50,000 a year ie almost double the average salary of the average voter I think sympathy will be in short supply
It's not the unions job to reflect public sentiment, it's their job to get the best deal for the members. I'd suggest the tube driver salary suggests they've done a pretty decent job.
That was largely the achievement of the late Bob Crow, however the more tube drivers complain, the more costly they become, the faster they hasten their own extinction and the move to automation
Well as a daily user of the Northern Line, I look forward to automation, although the unions will fight it with more strikes, depends if TFL are up for that fight...
Given tube drivers are now on £50,000 a year and spend much of their time on strike TFL may soon be left with little alternative
The driverless Docklands light rail worked well last time I was in London. I'd be going for it if I was TFL...
Do none of them remember Hammersmith & Fulham's disastrous dabble in financial instruments in the '80s
They were on the hook for a loss of about $600 million on sterling interest rate swaps and options in 1988, until the courts ruled in their favour, and declared the deals to be null and void.
A quite extraordinarily profitable time for lawyers, first in the public law proceedings in Hazell, then in the proceedings by the banks for restitution. From memory, the consequences of the local authorities' gambling went to the House of Lords five times.
Mr. 1000, the immediate pain is greater, but doing nothing will be worse in the long run. When the eurozone crumbles it'll cause more devastation the more closely integrated and prolonged its existence is.
Why? The cost of breaking up in a disorganised fashion will always be horrible. It's not clear why it would be more in 10 years time than now.
Not only that, but you miss my point about this being an adhocracy. There will always be a good reason to kick the can down the road.
The Eurozone is fine, so long as all the Gov't operate broadly Osborne/ Merkelonics methinks. It can even cope with the French. I'm convinced that if the Greeks exit then it would be better for all.
Unless there's a vast amount of uniformity enforced, they will remain very different structural economies. As long as they are very different structural economies, there will be overvalued economies and undervalued economies within the bloc. As long as that happens, there will be prolonged bubbles and prolonged slumps by some of the members. Countries leaving will just change which economies are on the raw end of that deal.
Who cares about the problems of the BBC, Mr Smithson? The free licence fee hardly bothered the BBC (or its efforts to have the fee increased) until now. The BBCs problems could be solved by becoming commercial. There is very little need for a TV Licence anyway. It hardly fulfills the remit of public service these days. If the BBC wants to be funded in its own unique way, then let the BBC fund from its vast resources the Brown imposed free licence fee.
Anyone who thinks the BBC is short of money only needs to have (tried to) watch the absurd ''Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel'' series which must have ranked as the most pointless waste of licence fee ever - and that's saying something.
Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.
Watching Australian, NZ or US TV is pretty mind numbing.
Once again the Tories are going to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.
No they willl eat the baby first. Any other daft statements? The best TV comes from the USA at present.
Nigel getting rare applause in the Euro Parly for telling Greece to leave with their heads held high.
It would almost certainly be the right thing for the Greeks, and also for the other countries in the Eurozone.
The only problem being that Tsipiras promised the Greek people that it wouldn't happen.
The Greek people have not been well served by their politicians.
The first two points are , I think, pretty key, particular when Greece is getting all sorts of praise from some corners of euroscepticism, which is fine, except it seems to be on the basis that they think Greece has chosen to leave and good on them, don't let the EU bullies get you down, when they have been refusing the bullies while still trying to stay in with the bullies, so its more complicated than leaving with their heads held high. They cannot, as they've been saying they won't be leaving.
Who cares about the problems of the BBC, Mr Smithson? The free licence fee hardly bothered the BBC (or its efforts to have the fee increased) until now. The BBCs problems could be solved by becoming commercial. There is very little need for a TV Licence anyway. It hardly fulfills the remit of public service these days. If the BBC wants to be funded in its own unique way, then let the BBC fund from its vast resources the Brown imposed free licence fee.
Anyone who thinks the BBC is short of money only needs to have (tried to) watch the absurd ''Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel'' series which must have ranked as the most pointless waste of licence fee ever - and that's saying something.
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel was some of the best drama to be on TV in recent times, it was fantastic.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
Also, it would be a mistake to claim that the Euro has been a disaster for all its member countries. For the core countries with increasingly integrated economies, it's very handy to have a single currency. Incomprehensible though it seems to many here in the UK, the Euro is seen as a good thing by most of Europe. In fact, this is true even in those countries, like Greece, where it actually has been a disaster.
I'm currently in Spain, and it is amazing how enthusiastic people here are about the Euro. (Although I wonder if I was in Andalucia rather than Madrid whether it would be the same.)
Offer them a 30-50% drop in their standard of living as a cost of keeping the Euro, and their enthusiasm might fade a bit...
Why would they have a 30-50% drop in their standard of living? I don't understand your comment.
Its what the Greeks have swallowed in the last five years as their price for staying in the Euro ?
Why should Spain have similar? Spain's economy will grow close to 4% this year. The economy will create close to a million new jobs (as they should given their unemployment rate). Spain's government debt-to-GDP (which is half the level of Greece) will fall this year. Exports from Spain haver grown more than 70% in the last six years. And - unlike last time - this is being done with a current account surplus, and with consumer and corporate debt declining.
Quite. Possibly their rosy view of the euro compared to that is Athens is due to the relative lack of pain it has caused them, as opposed to any specific benefits of the Euro.
Does anyone else think Sky's truly brilliant trailer "we didn't start the fire" which, amongst other things, had Naz's infamous decision to bowl highlighted played a part this morning?
Really not sure that it is a batting morning against a seam attack like the Aussies have. Such a lot depends on Cook in this first hour.
Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.
Watching Australian, NZ or US TV is pretty mind numbing.
Once again the Tories are going to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.
No they willl eat the baby first. Any other daft statements? The best TV comes from the USA at present.
The idea that television including Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad is "mind numbing" is an odd one. Especially when British television includes Songs of Praise and the Shed of the Year awards.
Abolishing tax deductability of mortgage interest for second properties has got to be coming. It is a £3bn per year bung to private landlords.
i.e. you want to increase rents (which are low in comparison to the capital cost).
It's a view, but clearly interest is a legitimate business expense in any business. What's different about housing?
The ability to own one's home? So rents might go up, but it might makes house prices fall (or not rise so much) - but that's why the government won't do it.
@EdConwaySky: Three radical Budget ideas: 1. Merge national insurance & income tax 2. Levy CGT on primary homes 3. Abolish tax deductability of debt
Merging NI and income tax would penalise savers; and also increase the tax take on pensioner incomes, incomes that are fixed, incomes that have come from the NI contributions they have already paid in. It would probably affect the self employed as well - not to mention income from investments (which would also probably affect the retired). Would you bet your money on the necessary computer changes being carried out smoothly?
Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.
Watching Australian, NZ or US TV is pretty mind numbing.
Once again the Tories are going to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.
No they willl eat the baby first. Any other daft statements? The best TV comes from the USA at present.
Abolishing tax deductability of mortgage interest for second properties has got to be coming. It is a £3bn per year bung to private landlords.
i.e. you want to increase rents (which are low in comparison to the capital cost).
It's a view, but clearly interest is a legitimate business expense in any business. What's different about housing?
The ability to own one's home? So rents might go up, but it might makes house prices fall (or not rise so much) - but that's why the government won't do it.
Small private landlords would be undercut by large businesses that could self-finance their acquisitions from profit without having to borrow money, and subsequently go out of business, thereby reducing the number of potential landlords dramatically, and hence price competition. Rent would therefore be likely to go up even more.
Abolishing tax deductability of mortgage interest for second properties has got to be coming. It is a £3bn per year bung to private landlords.
i.e. you want to increase rents (which are low in comparison to the capital cost).
It's a view, but clearly interest is a legitimate business expense in any business. What's different about housing?
Because housing should not be a bloody investment, it is where people have to live. Private landlords have to be harassed out of the sector.
To be replaced by big business landlords that can afford the lawyers and accountants and defray the cost across a large number of properties, not sure that is a step forward.
The ability to own one's home? So rents might go up, but it might makes house prices fall (or not rise so much) - but that's why the government won't do it.
Making renting more expensive, and thereby incentivising people to buy their own property, is a funny way of making house prices fall. I'd have thought the net effect on house prices would be pretty neutral: house prices are high because of lack of supply. It's as simple as that.
1) The BBC fetishises impartiality (whether or not it achieves it, its self-image is constructed around this). It seems to me that this is a mistake. It should be seeking instead to give the fullest possible outlets for different viewpoints, no matter how challenging its audience might find some of those views. That is not the same thing. It can properly reflect a consensus among its audience on given matters. To do otherwise leads you to the Terminator 2 conversation:
John Connor: You just can't go around killing people. The Terminator: Why? John Connor: What do you mean why? 'Cause you can't. The Terminator: Why? John Connor: Because you just can't, okay? Trust me on this.
The hard part is working out where there is such a consensus. But since the BBC demonstrates unconscious preferences over and over again (not so much party political as institutional), it should perhaps stop beating itself up about these unconscious preferences and instead start identifying them and working out which ones are defensible given its audience.
2) For so long as the BBC gets public funding it needs to be able to justify its areas of activity. It started operating in media which were apt for monopolies or where only a few channels were practically available (analogue radio and TV), where great care is required to ensure that the medium is fairly made available. It now has a huge presence on the internet, where anyone can set up their own website with minimal effort to broadcast their views to the planet. Hell, even I've done it. While its website is extremely good, it's hard to see why it is required to be provided at public expense, given the superabundance of information and opinions that can be found online. It's not the only extremely good website out there. It should be spun off from the BBC, even if it continues to get much of its content there.
3) In future, what will be the purpose of the BBC? That is becoming less and less obvious. The anomalies are accepted by the public for now because its quality, history and convenience mean that there is no pressing need to change things. As people consume more and more of their news and entertainment through superabundant and free media, this will change and fast. The BBC needs a ready answer to this question. It hasn't got one yet.
Comments
The ONS announced that the figures were better than expected, and the presenters were literally lost for words and spent the next 5hrs trying to find nits to pick.
I used to listen to R5 about 10hrs a day and finally gave in around 2012 as it was so lobsided.
Osborne's response is, as Mike says, politically smart in shoving the problem over to the Beeb, but it's also a nifty way of effectively pushing the Beeb into becoming a bit more efficient. There's plenty of scope for that, of course.
As for the licence fee model itself, it is a truth universally acknowledged that it has been overtaken by technological and social change. It was a model designed for a handful of monopoly or near-monopoly terrestrial channels, so it was originally something like a subscription to the BBC's output. Now we live in a very different world. At the last charter renewal, the then Labour government said that they thought this was the last time the licence fee model would be renewed, but it's not politically straightforward to change it.
Probably the new move to charge for iPlayer content is the beginning of a gradual shift away from the licence fee, and that this will be the way things evolve rather than a sudden end to the model altogether.
The Swedish model for print media also works up to a point - advertising is subject to a tax which is used to subsidise papers for newspapers with an unusual opinion, thereby maintaining a variety of choices for consumers regardless of affluence. A Trotskyist newspaper opposing democracy and favouring dictatorship of the proletariat was an interesting test case - they got the subsidy, on the basis that this was, indeed, an unusual opinion. I've never been sure if that was an example of democracy as wonderful or bonkers.
Forget about reputational issues and the "European dream" and all that crap: in the short-term breaking up the Euro would be a legal and economic mess.
1. Banking and IT systems would need to be changed all over Europe.
2. There would bank runs as people tried to take money out of banks in countries where successor currencies would likely be weak
3. Would government debts be moved to a basket of currencies or to a national one?
4. What about cross border debts?
As most politicians only care about the next election, the result is an adhocracy. What gets us through the next three months? What will be most popular back home?
Plenty of former BBC journalists and directors admit to the left-leaning bias at the organization, but the BBC always claims it is "scrupulously impartial". I think we are reaching the point where it's clear that the organization will never be unbiased.
The BBC should concentrate on commissioning (not making) a limited number of programmes where the market does not deliver. Largely educational and arts shows I would have thought. These could then be sold to commercial broadcasters and/or delivered on-line.
How could the BBC operate such an injust system ?
The only problem being that Tsipiras promised the Greek people that it wouldn't happen.
The Greek people have not been well served by their politicians.
Well, that's clearly rubbish from a policy framing perspective given the actualite.
As for the others, Stockholm Syndrome, prestige, a feeling of belonging, and being downright deranged probably explain their views.
Miss Plato, cheers for that answer.
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/Budget-Specials/2015-Summer-Budget-Specials/Politics-N-1z10w82Z1z0iq4nZ1z141ng/
No bet for me.
Don't forget, if you look at change in employed persons from the beginning of the Euro (1/1/99) to now, then you get quite surprising numbers. Off the top of my head it's something like:
Ireland +23%
Spain +16%
Germany +11%
Italy + 9%
UK +8%
France +8%
Greece -20%
It shows how vast the BBC income is. If the BBC complain they have to do less, then there is a very simple way to help them, sell off Radio 1, 2, 5, 6 or whatever and BBC 3, 4
But that's all a bit by-the-by. Europe has it now. And they will do what they have to do to keep it, because the costs of breaking it are greater than the costs of keeping it.
In any case, there's a big difference between a change which the BBC will now be lobbying for, and a change which they would in their normal way be vehemently opposing (as they oppose all moves to save public money).
They were on the hook for a loss of about $600 million on sterling interest rate swaps and options in 1988, until the courts ruled in their favour, and declared the deals to be null and void.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_swap
http://duncancampbellsmith.com/pdf/ftm_chapter_6.pdf
I'm barred from Stan James anyway.
But I'd have backed it if I wasn't.
Not only that, but you miss my point about this being an adhocracy. There will always be a good reason to kick the can down the road.
It would surely surge.
1. Merge national insurance & income tax
2. Levy CGT on primary homes
3. Abolish tax deductability of debt
It is possible one of them could get ill or break a leg and enable someone else to leapfrog them. However, their cars appear to be substantially better than those behind them.
(4th and down):
Bottas 77
Raikkonen 76
Massa 74
--------
Ricciardo 36
Kvyat 27
Hulkenberg 24
With top places likely Mercedes-dominated and lower teams unlikely to break into the top 5-6 at races, this diminishes their ability to rack up large points to decrease the 38 points deficit from Ricciardo to Massa (let along the 52 points from Hulkenberg to Bottas).
Not something I'll be doing myself (had to reduce my Betfair stakes due to my account there getting a bit anorexic), but I thought I'd flag it up for those of you who have more obese wallets. Last race this year is on 29 November, though I'd guess this market would be effectively done a few races earlier.
If I were in a job that could soon be replaced by automation very easily, I would create as little fuss as possible and hope that people wouldn't be wondering how fast-tracked that replacement could be.
I concur with your adhocracy comment, but the deeper the systems are entwined the greater the pain of separation.
http://debtresistance.uk/the-ghosts-of-hammersmith-fulham-the-return-of-toxic-council-derivatives-debt/
Anyone who thinks the BBC is short of money only needs to have (tried to) watch the absurd ''Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel'' series which must have ranked as the most pointless waste of licence fee ever - and that's saying something.
Any other daft statements?
The best TV comes from the USA at present.
Really not sure that it is a batting morning against a seam attack like the Aussies have. Such a lot depends on Cook in this first hour.
It's a view, but clearly interest is a legitimate business expense in any business. What's different about housing?
Would you bet your money on the necessary computer changes being carried out smoothly?
I saw it on Netflix or Prime a few months ago.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) &
Kevin Foster (Torbay)
Will be voting against.
Kate Hoey I think is in favour.
Most of Labour against, most Tories in favour of repeal otherwise ?
What will the SNP do.
Expect the futile 56 to vote against...
John Connor: You just can't go around killing people.
The Terminator: Why?
John Connor: What do you mean why? 'Cause you can't.
The Terminator: Why?
John Connor: Because you just can't, okay? Trust me on this.
The hard part is working out where there is such a consensus. But since the BBC demonstrates unconscious preferences over and over again (not so much party political as institutional), it should perhaps stop beating itself up about these unconscious preferences and instead start identifying them and working out which ones are defensible given its audience.
2) For so long as the BBC gets public funding it needs to be able to justify its areas of activity. It started operating in media which were apt for monopolies or where only a few channels were practically available (analogue radio and TV), where great care is required to ensure that the medium is fairly made available. It now has a huge presence on the internet, where anyone can set up their own website with minimal effort to broadcast their views to the planet. Hell, even I've done it. While its website is extremely good, it's hard to see why it is required to be provided at public expense, given the superabundance of information and opinions that can be found online. It's not the only extremely good website out there. It should be spun off from the BBC, even if it continues to get much of its content there.
3) In future, what will be the purpose of the BBC? That is becoming less and less obvious. The anomalies are accepted by the public for now because its quality, history and convenience mean that there is no pressing need to change things. As people consume more and more of their news and entertainment through superabundant and free media, this will change and fast. The BBC needs a ready answer to this question. It hasn't got one yet.
https://twitter.com/mike_fabricant/status/618720797213986816
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21651220-most-western-economies-sweeten-cost-borrowing-bad-idea-senseless-subsidy
About the only article the Economist has written that I agree with.
Can we start simplifying the tax system in general though, ludicrous situation at the moment.