@jeremycorbyn: @leftoutside I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter...
Didn't realise he was a homeopathy nutter too! Excellent
His statement is not even true. You can get homeopathic arsenic which is not organic matter.
R5 had a lovely voxpox this morning where they found nobody, absolutely nobody, who had anything bad to say about the BBC. Not a single thing, like oh I would love to see more live sport on the BBC. Nope, nothing. Even found a couple who pay £140 a year even though they don't watch tv or listen to the radio, because they love BBC weather app.
@jeremycorbyn: @leftoutside I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter...
Didn't realise he was a homeopathy nutter too! Excellent
His statement is not even true. You can get homeopathic arsenic which is not organic matter.
R5 had a lovely voxpox this morning where they found nobody, absolutely nobody, who had anything bad to say about the BBC. Not a single thing, like oh I would love to see more live sport on the BBC. Nope, nothing. Even found a couple who pay £140 a year even though they don't watch tv or listen to the radio, because they love BBC weather app.
Lay the draw again? My forecast says rain overnight tonight but then no more than occasional showers until Monday.
The way the wicket is playing so far, you'd have to say an Aussie win is favourite, draw second, England win third. Our batsmen are going to have a very big job to do.
Lay the draw again? My forecast says rain overnight tonight but then no more than occasional showers until Monday.
The way the wicket is playing so far, you'd have to say an Aussie win is favourite, draw second, England win third. Our batsmen are going to have a very big job to do.
Batting 1st here a big advantage no doubt. Not so much because you bat 1st, but you don't then bat last
Lay the draw again? My forecast says rain overnight tonight but then no more than occasional showers until Monday.
The way the wicket is playing so far, you'd have to say an Aussie win is favourite, draw second, England win third. Our batsmen are going to have a very big job to do.
Batting 1st here a big advantage no doubt. Not so much because you bat 1st, but you don't then bat last
Good point! England need a few quick wickets today to make a game of it.
The Financial Times is pointing out that the EU is using the European Financial Stability Facility because there is a risk to the Eurozone. Yet they are telling the non-Euro members they can use the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism because there's no risk to the Eurozone.
Rogers is the exception that proves the rule of home advantage in cricket !
Didn't he play for Middlesex for a few seasons?
Yep that's my point
Aaah - got you. He is an unbelievably stubborn player and very, very reliable.
England will do very well not to lose this game. As you say, batting last is going to be tricky. It will almost certainly spin pretty sharply. They need to score a lot of runs in the first innings and take up a good part of two days doing it. If they manage it, I reckon they will be over halfway to winning the Ashes back.
Michael Palin revealed today the BBC's £327,800-a-year TV boss Danny Cohen secretly helped to organise a letter of support signed by 29 celebrities.
So the BBC are paying large amounts of money to lobby politicians to give them more money? It really does sound like there is significant room for cuts. Organizations getting money from the taxpayer should not be allowed to lobby.
I really miss the Telegraph blogs. I used to read them everyday and the quality of Mr Hannan's reasoning/knowledge was superb.
I barely bother with the DT now unless specifically linked to on here. A real missed opportunity. The Times is far too slow to respond to updates during the day - the DT was right off the mark.
Did you read the linked article, its terribly pro-EU, basically saying Cameron should hold the referendum now because it might all go wrong later, plus all the usual platitudes
To remain influential as a champion of free trade at a time when agreements are being hammered out with the US and Japan, the UK needs to be negotiating from inside the club.
etc. Slightly ironic that article being written today considering the events of the past week (and arguably the past six months)
Listening to the fevered support of some of these people over the past few weeks, with their belief in the subservience of elected representatives to the standing EU bureaucracy, is making me and no doubt many others determined that Out is the only way forward.
It is becoming clearer by the day that there is no status quo to vote for, as major reform of the EZ is required to make it work in practice rather than in theory - meanwhile Greece is being literally hung out to dry without a care for the impact on the country and its citizens in order for the EU Project to succeed.
You wont get any argument from me on that, I was BOO before the Greek fiasco was even on the cards, although from the Hannanite perspective (sovereignty) rather than the immigration one.
Yes, would like to see a lot more of Mr Dan Hannan.
He has his own views on a whole range of political subjects - with which people may or may not agree - but when it comes to the principles of democracy and returning power to the people his arguments are very coherent and eloquently made, could appeal beyond the libertarian wing of the Conservatives who are his usual audience.
If you want to keep up to date with Mr Hannan's thinking, I recommend his "Ici Londres" videos posted quite frequently on his Youtube Channel. For example this recent missive on the Greece fiasco
Michael Palin revealed today the BBC's £327,800-a-year TV boss Danny Cohen secretly helped to organise a letter of support signed by 29 celebrities.
So the BBC are paying large amounts of money to lobby politicians to give them more money? It really does sound like there is significant room for cuts. Organizations getting money from the taxpayer should not be allowed to lobby.
The daft thing about the BBC letter is they could have probably got half the luvvies to draft and send the letter with no formal compunction over a few drinks in the Groucho.
Michael Palin revealed today the BBC's £327,800-a-year TV boss Danny Cohen secretly helped to organise a letter of support signed by 29 celebrities.
So the BBC are paying large amounts of money to lobby politicians to give them more money? It really does sound like there is significant room for cuts. Organizations getting money from the taxpayer should not be allowed to lobby. "Organizations getting money from the taxpayer should not be allowed to lobby."
A key principle. But the BBC Chairman and Trust seem to be incapable of overseeing. Some form of organisation capture at work? We had Fatty Patty spitting blood earlier today.
Seeing Burnham attempting to steer wrangle a narrow loss for Corbyn would be hilarious. How on Earth can it help Labour electorally if Corbyn's supporters come a close second?
They'll be demanding all sorts of stuff that Burnham really doesn't to do.
anyway, I'm trying to work out what I'd like most:
Corbyn ahead on 1st pref, narrowly beaten
or
straight Corbyn win
The one place a strong Corbyn performance would help a little is Scotland, he would be poison for Labour in England, especially if he wins but in Scotland he may actually help Scottish Labour in the central belt
For what it's worth I think Corbyn will go down like a lead balloon in Scotland, he will only appeal to SLAB's 15% core vote who are typically older, working club and voted SLAB all their lives. As Kezia has made clear herself SLAB need to start reconnecting with the 16-55 group.
On topic Curtis's GE2015 poll post-mortem found that:
" On Labour and the SNP, however, the record is not quite so good. All three polls overestimated Labour support, on average by 2.0 points, only slightly less than the average 2.4 point discrepancy in the estimate of Labour support in the GB-wide polls. At the same time all three slightly underestimated SNP support. "
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
@HYUFD The Telegraph are getting their vote share numbers from the NS. Apparently these numbers are based on vote share and constituency nominations mirroring each other, as opposed to an actual poll. What's interesting, is that both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns, according to the NS link are debunking these private poll results. Apparently private polling doesn't necessarily get it right all the time, either. LD private polling showed that they were on course to get at least 30 seats, and IndyRef private polling showed YES winning, so perhaps we should (in the event of polls not having their best moment of credibility, as well) take some caution from this story. Either way, we'll see what choice Labour has made soonish.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
Michael Palin revealed today the BBC's £327,800-a-year TV boss Danny Cohen secretly helped to organise a letter of support signed by 29 celebrities.
So the BBC are paying large amounts of money to lobby politicians to give them more money? It really does sound like there is significant room for cuts. Organizations getting money from the taxpayer should not be allowed to lobby.
The cost of a stamp, surely?
There's also the preparation of the materials, which presumably involved several people. Then there's the salary of the man on 300k a year spending his time to get various current and previous employees of the BBC to use their fame to go on a PR push.
HYUFD 'If Cameron and Osborne are clever they would simply change the Fixed Parliaments Act and call an election in 3/4 years time with Corbyn still at the helm, crushing Labour to an even worse defeat than 2015 in the process! '
Somehow I don't think the Lords would let that through!
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Edit: removed previous quotes which were broken.
What price free speech then if you question the BBC?
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
No, it's a tax. You have to pay it for watching TV on other channels completely unrelated to the BBC.
The daft thing about the BBC letter is they could have probably got half the luvvies to draft and send the letter with no formal compunction over a few drinks in the Groucho.
Remember the reaction of the BBC PR department twitter feed when Whittingdale got appointed. They went all smeary, when they could have just let somebody else spread the message.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
Yep - millions of taxpayers do not pay the licence fee. Many non-taxpayers do.
The BBC haters' main problem is that most voters do not hate the BBC and do actually place some value on it, even if it annoys them from time to time. It's all very well saying the BBC should not produce "popular" programmes; but if it doesn't, who will? The schedules of the free to air channels are already full, so that leaves subscription channels. In the end, therefore, what may happen is people paying more to watch the likes of East Enders and Sherlock than they do now. That will not be popular.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Edit: removed previous quotes which were broken.
What price free speech then if you question the BBC?
Eh? The BBC's critics complain the pro-BBC luvvies have a vested interest. My point is those very same critics also have a vested interest in the BBC's rivals.What's sauce for the goose, or not.
@SouthamObserver The scale of the BBC's dominance of news on-line, TV, radio is a big issue, how far is it desirable to have concentration in the hands of one group is worthy of discussion.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
It used to be a subscription when the BBC had a monopoly, or bulk share of a duopoly.
Now it's a tax because it is imposed even if we completely avoid the BBC in the multi-channel age, which many do.
Another piece of the last century that some aren't willing to let go of even though it's clearly outmoded.
@SouthamObserver The scale of the BBC's dominance of news on-line, TV, radio is a big issue, how far is it desirable to have concentration in the hands of one group is worthy of discussion.
I agree. But if it ends up meaning less choice and higher costs for viewers/listeners then the Tories will have hell to pay. It's something people will really care about. They need to be careful. As does the BBC, of course.
Seeing Burnham attempting to steer wrangle a narrow loss for Corbyn would be hilarious. How on Earth can it help Labour electorally if Corbyn's supporters come a close second?
They'll be demanding all sorts of stuff that Burnham really doesn't to do.
anyway, I'm trying to work out what I'd like most:
Corbyn ahead on 1st pref, narrowly beaten
or
straight Corbyn win
The one place a strong Corbyn performance would help a little is Scotland, he would be poison for Labour in England, especially if he wins but in Scotland he may actually help Scottish Labour in the central belt
For what it's worth I think Corbyn will go down like a lead balloon in Scotland, he will only appeal to SLAB's 15% core vote who are typically older, working club and voted SLAB all their lives. As Kezia has made clear herself SLAB need to start reconnecting with the 16-55 group.
On topic Curtis's GE2015 poll post-mortem found that:
" On Labour and the SNP, however, the record is not quite so good. All three polls overestimated Labour support, on average by 2.0 points, only slightly less than the average 2.4 point discrepancy in the estimate of Labour support in the GB-wide polls. At the same time all three slightly underestimated SNP support. "
I think it's quite likely that the recent Scottish polls will still have this SLAB bias.
The exit poll overestimated the SNP's total slightly, it had the SNP winning 58 seats and they won 56
On Corbyn, the last yougov Labour leadership poll had him on 8% in Scotland, double the 4% he was on in the UK as a whole. He was on double Kendall's score of 4% north of the border and only just behind Burnham on 9% and Cooper on 10% https://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/?page=7
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
Yep - millions of taxpayers do not pay the licence fee. Many non-taxpayers do.
That's a bit like claiming VAT isn't a tax because "millions of non-taxpayers pay it"
Your average subscription is voluntary, is not extracted under threat of criminal sanction, and buys you a particular good or service. The license fee is a tax on television use.
HYUFD 'If Cameron and Osborne are clever they would simply change the Fixed Parliaments Act and call an election in 3/4 years time with Corbyn still at the helm, crushing Labour to an even worse defeat than 2015 in the process! '
Somehow I don't think the Lords would let that through!
@SouthamObserver The scale of the BBC's dominance of news on-line, TV, radio is a big issue, how far is it desirable to have concentration in the hands of one group is worthy of discussion.
I agree. But if it ends up meaning less choice and higher costs for viewers/listeners then the Tories will have hell to pay. It's something people will really care about. They need to be careful. As does the BBC, of course.
Politicians generally do not watch much broadcast television. Voters do.
(Nor do BBC executives, as many BBC presenters have complained.)
@HYUFD The Telegraph are getting their vote share numbers from the NS. Apparently these numbers are based on vote share and constituency nominations mirroring each other, as opposed to an actual poll. What's interesting, is that both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns, according to the NS link are debunking these private poll results. Apparently private polling doesn't necessarily get it right all the time, either. LD private polling showed that they were on course to get at least 30 seats, and IndyRef private polling showed YES winning, so perhaps we should (in the event of polls not having their best moment of credibility, as well) take some caution from this story. Either way, we'll see what choice Labour has made soonish.
We need a yougov poll of members to get a better idea but it does seem to be a Burnham v Corbyn race at the moment. Romney's private polls also had him ahead so yes they often suit those who commissioned them
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
Yep - millions of taxpayers do not pay the licence fee. Many non-taxpayers do.
The BBC haters' main problem is that most voters do not hate the BBC and do actually place some value on it, even if it annoys them from time to time. It's all very well saying the BBC should not produce "popular" programmes; but if it doesn't, who will? The schedules of the free to air channels are already full, so that leaves subscription channels. In the end, therefore, what may happen is people paying more to watch the likes of East Enders and Sherlock than they do now. That will not be popular.
With all respect, I don't think there is much logic to your arguments.
1) Millions of taxpayers do not pay corporation tax. Millions of taxpayers do not pay inheritance tax. That does not mean they are not taxes. 2) The logic of "The licence fee is not a tax because non-taxpayers pay it" is complete circular reasoning. It's only true if you have already accepted the licence fee is not a tax. It can not be used to back up that belief.
Let us look at the actual definition of a tax:
tax taks/Submit noun 1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
Can anyone really deny that the licence fee fits that definition?
I agree. But if it ends up meaning less choice and higher costs for viewers/listeners then the Tories will have hell to pay. It's something people will really care about. They need to be careful. As does the BBC, of course.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
A subscription where you go to jail if you don't pay it....
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
Yep - millions of taxpayers do not pay the licence fee. Many non-taxpayers do.
The BBC haters' main problem is that most voters do not hate the BBC and do actually place some value on it, even if it annoys them from time to time. It's all very well saying the BBC should not produce "popular" programmes; but if it doesn't, who will? The schedules of the free to air channels are already full, so that leaves subscription channels. In the end, therefore, what may happen is people paying more to watch the likes of East Enders and Sherlock than they do now. That will not be popular.
With all respect, I don't think there is much logic to your arguments.
1) Millions of taxpayers do not pay corporation tax. Millions of taxpayers do not pay inheritance tax. That does not mean they are not taxes. 2) The logic of "The licence fee is not a tax because non-taxpayers pay it" is complete circular reasoning. It's only true if you have already accepted the licence fee is not a tax. It can not be used to back up that belief.
Let us look at the actual definition of a tax:
tax taks/Submit noun 1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
Can anyone really deny that the licence fee fits that definition?
Semantically, yes I can. The licence is not a tax levied on individuals, or on a service, or on goods, or on transactions. Not all the adults in my house pay it - whether they buy a TV, watch the BBC or not. But I take your point :-)
My main point is that for the Tories to be successful in downsizing the BBC and reducing its influence, they will need to find a way that does not lessen choice and/or increase viewer costs. That is going to be very tricky.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
Yep - millions of taxpayers do not pay the licence fee. Many non-taxpayers do.
The BBC haters' main problem is that most voters do not hate the BBC and do actually place some value on it, even if it annoys them from time to time. It's all very well saying the BBC should not produce "popular" programmes; but if it doesn't, who will? The schedules of the free to air channels are already full, so that leaves subscription channels. In the end, therefore, what may happen is people paying more to watch the likes of East Enders and Sherlock than they do now. That will not be popular.
With all respect, I don't think there is much logic to your arguments.
1) Millions of taxpayers do not pay corporation tax. Millions of taxpayers do not pay inheritance tax. That does not mean they are not taxes. 2) The logic of "The licence fee is not a tax because non-taxpayers pay it" is complete circular reasoning. It's only true if you have already accepted the licence fee is not a tax. It can not be used to back up that belief.
Let us look at the actual definition of a tax:
tax taks/Submit noun 1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
Can anyone really deny that the licence fee fits that definition?
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Guido in not tax payer funded, that is the difference.
The licence fee is not is not a government tax. It's a subscription, like you pay a subscription to read The Sun and The Times on-line. (I would sell off the BBC)
A subscription where you go to jail if you don't pay it....
Where you go to jail if you don't pay for it, that is levied by parliament, that is collected into the government's consolidated fund, and that is charged on all such service, even that provided by self-funded competitors.
The licence fee is so evidently a tax it damages people's credibility when they try to claim otherwise. It is like claiming the sky is green.
My main point is that for the Tories to be successful in downsizing the BBC and reducing its influence, they will need to find a way that does not lessen choice and/or increase viewer costs. That is going to be very tricky.
95% of BBC web services could go, similar free commercial offerings are available. They could stop spending money on fluff like their new "computer" of school kids which is not only a well occupied niche but is non-standard equipment running a non-standard OS. They could do with less than 10 levels of management, private corporations of similar size have 4-5 levels. I am not sure why they are producing "entertainment" to compete with commercial TV, people can watch similar stuff for free on ITV and Ch4/5 at no cost. That should do to be getting on with.
So far, basically Whittingdale is saying little to no change in funding etc. He is kicking the idea of subscription in the long long grass and no decriminalization. All the luvies can stop their incessant tweeting now.
I'm APPALLED that he's even suggesting a *household levy*. A BBC Poll Tax in reality. Which numpty thinks that's better than at least not having a TV at all?
He can bugger right off if that's more than a filler notion.
So far, basically Whittingdale is saying little to no change in funding etc. He is kicking the idea of subscription in the long long grass and no decriminalization. All the luvies can stop their incessant tweeting now.
So far, basically Whittingdale is saying little to no change in funding etc. He is kicking the idea of subscription in the long long grass and no decriminalization. All the luvies can stop their incessant tweeting now.
What did shock me about the BMA representative on the tv and radio this morning, is how he used typical tactics of a politician tactics in dissembling the truth and distracting the discussion away onto a side matter or even an impossible requirement.
For example when asked about weekend working he replied "90% of doctors do work at weekends". Now what he did not say is that such working was at their discretion and some of it was in private practice and not for the NHS.... Later on he did admit that very few hospital doctors did NHS scheduled weekend work.
The BMA man also kept saying that they wanted to discuss "the wider context and issues of weekend working". It sounded reasonable but when pushed he then went on about the need for supporting services to be provided. It as if the BMA wants to insiste that all the support services are in place to their satisfaction/veto and then they will discuss agreeing to scheduled weekend working in a new contract. Why should the BMA have such a right of veto over how the rest of a hospital operates? Of course by demanding the undeliverable it just kicks the can down the road a few more years. Ooops we have to over look tens of thousands dying because of the delay....
Of course support services will need to be in place. You can't run outpatients without receptionists, and drivers for mobility-impaired patients, and so on.
But that is not the BMA's responsibility. By demanding that everything is in place they create a barrier to any change. No change suits them. Patients die.
Oh FFS. Patients die because there are not enough doctors. There are not enough doctors because successive governments haven't properly funded and correctly framed medical training in ages. Trying to blame doctors already working silly hours covering for missing staff because hospitals and practises cant get the people they need, because they don't pay enough, for patient deaths is disingenuous crap, to put it mildly.
We seem to be training them for Australia and New Zealand. Every programme you see from there , all the doctors and nurses are from UK
My main point is that for the Tories to be successful in downsizing the BBC and reducing its influence, they will need to find a way that does not lessen choice and/or increase viewer costs. That is going to be very tricky.
95% of BBC web services could go, similar free commercial offerings are available. They could stop spending money on fluff like their new "computer" of school kids which is not only a well occupied niche but is non-standard equipment running a non-standard OS. They could do with less than 10 levels of management, private corporations of similar size have 4-5 levels. I am not sure why they are producing "entertainment" to compete with commercial TV, people can watch similar stuff for free on ITV and Ch4/5 at no cost. That should do to be getting on with.
I agree with all that, save the last sentence. Watching similar stuff is not the same as watching the same stuff. Strictly Come Dancing is similar to Dancing on Ice, but not the same. And the latter only started on ITV because the BBC had taken the plunge and established proof of concept. No-one is going to mind very much if the website is scaled back or the BBC stops producing computers; they will mind if their choice of programming is restricted or becomes more expensive.
So far, basically Whittingdale is saying little to no change in funding etc. He is kicking the idea of subscription in the long long grass and no decriminalization. All the luvies can stop their incessant tweeting now.
Indeed, cant say I am impressed so far. This parliament the government has run away from the EU over bailing out Greece, run away from the BBC over doing much to it of note, from the SNP over fox hunting, run away from NHS healthcare for expats, run away from conservative principles with all sorts of trendy identity politics crap, at least he appears to have the good sense to be running away from idiocy in not banning encryption after all (despite all the razzmatazz on the subject). I suppose its better than Ed, but that's hardly a glowing complement.
My main point is that for the Tories to be successful in downsizing the BBC and reducing its influence, they will need to find a way that does not lessen choice and/or increase viewer costs. That is going to be very tricky.
95% of BBC web services could go, similar free commercial offerings are available. They could stop spending money on fluff like their new "computer" of school kids which is not only a well occupied niche but is non-standard equipment running a non-standard OS. They could do with less than 10 levels of management, private corporations of similar size have 4-5 levels. I am not sure why they are producing "entertainment" to compete with commercial TV, people can watch similar stuff for free on ITV and Ch4/5 at no cost. That should do to be getting on with.
Entertainment was part of the Reithian mission: to inform, educate and entertain.
For the politicians, axing the BBC's most popular programmes might be a courageous step. As for ITV and Channel 5, perhaps the reason for their lower viewing figures is because the BBC makes better programmes. Without that competition, the other broadcasters' output might get even worse.
Does the BBC need reform? Probably. Would we have started from here? No. But remember many of the critics want to see the BBC hobbled so they can make more money, and not for any altruistic reasons.
All this nonsense about if BBC should do Strictly or the Voice or whatever, totally misses the point. Of course they should make a wide range of programmes.
This is a bit like all that nonsense of ISIL or ISIS or Islamic State. The issue isn't what you call them, it is that they are a terrorist organisation and we shouldn't be "providing balance" when it comes to things like that.
The issues for me with the BBC is that
a) the funding model is not fit for the 21st century, both morally and also technologically
b) they are claiming no money, but increasing staff number, management pay / number is still way too much and getting involved in vanity projects that have nothing to do with programming e.g. the BBC micro:bit
What did shock me about the BMA representative on the tv and radio this morning, is how he used typical tactics of a politician tactics in dissembling the truth and distracting the discussion away onto a side matter or even an impossible requirement.
For example when asked about weekend working he replied "90% of doctors do work at weekends". Now what he did not say is that such working was at their discretion and some of it was in private practice and not for the NHS.... Later on he did admit that very few hospital doctors did NHS scheduled weekend work.
The BMA man also kept saying that they wanted to discuss "the wider context and issues of weekend working". It sounded reasonable but when pushed he then went on about the need for supporting services to be provided. It as if the BMA wants to insiste that all the support services are in place to their satisfaction/veto and then they will discuss agreeing to scheduled weekend working in a new contract. Why should the BMA have such a right of veto over how the rest of a hospital operates? Of course by demanding the undeliverable it just kicks the can down the road a few more years. Ooops we have to over look tens of thousands dying because of the delay....
Of course support services will need to be in place. You can't run outpatients without receptionists, and drivers for mobility-impaired patients, and so on.
But that is not the BMA's responsibility. By demanding that everything is in place they create a barrier to any change. No change suits them. Patients die.
Oh FFS. Patients die because there are not enough doctors. There are not enough doctors because successive governments haven't properly funded and correctly framed medical training in ages. Trying to blame doctors already working silly hours covering for missing staff because hospitals and practises cant get the people they need, because they don't pay enough, for patient deaths is disingenuous crap, to put it mildly.
We seem to be training them for Australia and New Zealand. Every programme you see from there , all the doctors and nurses are from UK
We are. In the last year or so my brother in law has interviewed more than half a dozen doctors to take full funded places in his practise, none of them have taken the position, and when asked why in a follow up phone call, those that gave a reason said because they had decided to take a job in Australia because it paid better for less work.
So far, basically Whittingdale is saying little to no change in funding etc. He is kicking the idea of subscription in the long long grass and no decriminalization. All the luvies can stop their incessant tweeting now.
It was reported Whittingdale was not best pleased when George Osborne pinched £700 million without consultation or even notice.
For example when asked about weekend working he replied "90% of doctors do work at weekends". Now what he did not say is that such working was at their discretion and some of it was in private practice and not for the NHS.... Later on he did admit that very few hospital doctors did NHS scheduled weekend work.
The BMA man also kept saying that they wanted to discuss "the wider context and issues of weekend working". It sounded reasonable but when pushed he then went on about the need for supporting services to be provided. It as if the BMA wants to insiste that all the support services are in place to their satisfaction/veto and then they will discuss agreeing to scheduled weekend working in a new contract. Why should the BMA have such a right of veto over how the rest of a hospital operates? Of course by demanding the undeliverable it just kicks the can down the road a few more years. Ooops we have to over look tens of thousands dying because of the delay....
Of course support services will need to be in place. You can't run outpatients without receptionists, and drivers for mobility-impaired patients, and so on.
But that is not the BMA's responsibility. By demanding that everything is in place they create a barrier to any change. No change suits them. Patients die.
Oh FFS. Patients die because there are not enough doctors. There are not enough doctors because successive governments haven't properly funded and correctly framed medical training in ages. Trying to blame doctors already working silly hours covering for missing staff because hospitals and practises cant get the people they need, because they don't pay enough, for patient deaths is disingenuous crap, to put it mildly.
We seem to be training them for Australia and New Zealand. Every programme you see from there , all the doctors and nurses are from UK
We are. In the last year or so my brother in law has interviewed more than half a dozen doctors to take full funded places in his practise, none of them have taken the position, and when asked why in a follow up phone call, those that gave a reason said because they had decided to take a job in Australia because it paid better for less work.
The market answer would be to pay more to attract those doctors back or keep them here. But the irony is that a lot of those doctors and others don't want the intrusion of the market into health and then complain that that self-same state run service can't pay enough to attract employees.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Edit: removed previous quotes which were broken.
What price free speech then if you question the BBC?
Eh? The BBC's critics complain the pro-BBC luvvies have a vested interest. My point is those very same critics also have a vested interest in the BBC's rivals.What's sauce for the goose, or not.
The difference is that those rivals do not get free money from taxpayers to write letters asking for more free money from taxpayers. Those who have to earn their living in the free market have every right to complain.
I'm APPALLED that he's even suggesting a *household levy*. A BBC Poll Tax in reality. Which numpty thinks that's better than at least not having a TV at all?
He can bugger right off if that's more than a filler notion.
So far, basically Whittingdale is saying little to no change in funding etc. He is kicking the idea of subscription in the long long grass and no decriminalization. All the luvies can stop their incessant tweeting now.
No decriminalization? Sounds like the government has bottled it here. What a shame.
And Guido works for the Sun which is owned by News International which owns Sky and Fox so by his own logic, Guido is not a disinterested source so should disqualify himself and STFU.
Edit: removed previous quotes which were broken.
What price free speech then if you question the BBC?
Eh? The BBC's critics complain the pro-BBC luvvies have a vested interest. My point is those very same critics also have a vested interest in the BBC's rivals.What's sauce for the goose, or not.
The difference is that those rivals do not get free money from taxpayers to write letters asking for more free money from taxpayers. Those who have to earn their living in the free market have every right to complain.
Either both sides are tainted by money, or none is.
What did shock me about the BMA representative on the tv and radio this morning, is how he used typical tactics of a politician tactics in dissembling the truth and distracting the discussion away onto a side matter or even an impossible requirement.
For example when asked about weekend working he replied "90% of doctors do work at weekends". Now what he did not say is that such working was at their discretion and some of it was in private practice and not for the NHS.... Later on he did admit that very few hospital doctors did NHS scheduled weekend work.
The BMA man also kept saying that they wanted to discuss "the wider context and issues of weekend working". It sounded reasonable but when pushed he then went on about the need for supporting services to be provided. It as if the BMA wants to insiste that all the support services are in place to their satisfaction/veto and then they will discuss agreeing to scheduled weekend working in a new contract. Why should the BMA have such a right of veto over how the rest of a hospital operates? Of course by demanding the undeliverable it just kicks the can down the road a few more years. Ooops we have to over look tens of thousands dying because of the delay....
Of course support services will need to be in place. You can't run outpatients without receptionists, and drivers for mobility-impaired patients, and so on.
But that is not the BMA's responsibility. By demanding that everything is in place they create a barrier to any change. No change suits them. Patients die.
Oh FFS. Patients die because there are not enough doctors. There are not enough doctors because successive governments haven't properly funded and correctly framed medical training in ages. Trying to blame doctors already working silly hours covering for missing staff because hospitals and practises cant get the people they need, because they don't pay enough, for patient deaths is disingenuous crap, to put it mildly.
We seem to be training them for Australia and New Zealand. Every programme you see from there , all the doctors and nurses are from UK
We are. In the last year or so my brother in law has interviewed more than half a dozen doctors to take full funded places in his practise, none of them have taken the position, and when asked why in a follow up phone call, those that gave a reason said because they had decided to take a job in Australia because it paid better for less work.
Wow. The Eurozone ministers have all agreed they will support using the EU-wide EFSM fund for Greece, so they have a common position before the European Council vote on Friday:
This is exactly what eurosceptics said would happen, wasn't it? The Eurozone forms a co-ordinated position and then uses that bloc vote to get it through. Apparently they only need one non-EZ member now and it passes.
All this nonsense about if BBC should do Strictly or the Voice or whatever, totally misses the point. Of course they should make a wide range of programmes.
This is a bit like all that nonsense of ISIL or ISIS or Islamic State. The issue isn't what you call them, it is that they are a terrorist organisation and we shouldn't be "providing balance" when it comes to things like that.
The issues for me with the BBC is that
a) the funding model is not fit for the 21st century, both morally and also technologically
b) they are claiming no money, but increasing staff number, management pay / number is still way too much and getting involved in vanity projects that have nothing to do with programming e.g. the BBC micro:bit
c) there is a liberal bias in the news coverage.
Yes.
All this 'Strictly' stuff is such bullshit. If the programme is popular, and there's a market demand for it; it will be made. If it's crap, people will not pay for it.
The attachment most people have to the BBC is institutional sentimentalism combined with the fact its programmes have no adverts.
Wow. The Eurozone ministers have all agreed they will support using the EU-wide EFSM fund for Greece, so they have a common position before the European Council vote on Friday:
This is exactly what eurosceptics said would happen, wasn't it? The Eurozone forms a co-ordinated position and then uses that bloc vote to get it through. Apparently they only need one non-EZ member now and it passes.
That means that Britain will also foot the bill for the French position of keeping Greece in the eurozone at all costs.
I'd like to say London doesn't deserve Galloway, but..
How on Earth does Galloway get 21%? I hate to think the Islamist vote is that large in London.
It isn't but that person is voting multiple times...........
Yep - it's a classic voodoo poll, and its easy to vote multiple times if you don't store cookies. I love the recollection of the Daily Express one where they asked readers whether they thought British residents or visiting gypsies should get priority for health care: someone organised a serious voodoo operation and 95% voted to give priority to gypsies :-).
Sort of on topic, I think the Corbyn price is now too short. He's doing well, but not that well.
I think as Josias Jessop has mentioned before, the switch to digital was a fantastic opportunity (missed) to put in place a card system for the BBC that could have quite easily been adapted to a subscription model.
On topic. No surprise, I said it on election night that differential turnout was the main problem, when I looked at the turnout figures that where very out of line from the predicted ones.
I'd like to say London doesn't deserve Galloway, but..
How on Earth does Galloway get 21%? I hate to think the Islamist vote is that large in London.
It isn't but that person is voting multiple times...........
Yep - it's a classic voodoo poll, and its easy to vote multiple times if you don't store cookies. I love the recollection of the Daily Express one where they asked readers whether they thought British residents or visiting gypsies should get priority for health care: someone organised a serious voodoo operation and 95% voted to give priority to gypsies :-).
Sort of on topic, I think the Corbyn price is now too short. He's doing well, but not that well.
She's talking about the corrupt Muslim voting patterns I think nick
I think as Josias Jessop has mentioned before, the switch to digital was a fantastic opportunity (missed) that was deliberately avoided to put in place a card system for the BBC that could have quite easily been adapted to a subscription model.
Wow. The Eurozone ministers have all agreed they will support using the EU-wide EFSM fund for Greece, so they have a common position before the European Council vote on Friday:
This is exactly what eurosceptics said would happen, wasn't it? The Eurozone forms a co-ordinated position and then uses that bloc vote to get it through. Apparently they only need one non-EZ member now and it passes.
That means that Britain will also foot the bill for the French position of keeping Greece in the eurozone at all costs.
It's an alarming precedent. It means the Eurozone is willing to act as a single bloc to spend EU-wide money. They don't quite yet have a QMV on their own, but it will only take one more nation to join the Euro and non-Euro members can be outvoted every time.
I'd like to say London doesn't deserve Galloway, but..
How on Earth does Galloway get 21%? I hate to think the Islamist vote is that large in London.
It isn't but that person is voting multiple times...........
Yep - it's a classic voodoo poll, and its easy to vote multiple times if you don't store cookies. I love the recollection of the Daily Express one where they asked readers whether they thought British residents or visiting gypsies should get priority for health care: someone organised a serious voodoo operation and 95% voted to give priority to gypsies :-).
Sort of on topic, I think the Corbyn price is now too short. He's doing well, but not that well.
No ones knows for sure though, the only concrete indicators that exist are the enthusiasm of his supporters and the CLP nominations.
Wow. The Eurozone ministers have all agreed they will support using the EU-wide EFSM fund for Greece, so they have a common position before the European Council vote on Friday:
This is exactly what eurosceptics said would happen, wasn't it? The Eurozone forms a co-ordinated position and then uses that bloc vote to get it through. Apparently they only need one non-EZ member now and it passes.
One would really like Britain to say that if our £850 million is used, the same amount will be deducted from our next payment to the EU. As we're sure they will understand, we trust their guarantees about as much as they trust Greek promises.
If they're going to play silly buggers, so can we.
I get lost in the acronym soup of the EU - but all this hoopla is firmly convincing me that rules aren't rules, agreements aren't honoured and whatever concessions the PM can get - they're not worth anything in reality if the EU does what it wants anyway.
I'm 9/10 certain to vote Out as things stand now. Promises vs Actions - I know what speaks louder on the credibility stakes.
Wow. The Eurozone ministers have all agreed they will support using the EU-wide EFSM fund for Greece, so they have a common position before the European Council vote on Friday:
This is exactly what eurosceptics said would happen, wasn't it? The Eurozone forms a co-ordinated position and then uses that bloc vote to get it through. Apparently they only need one non-EZ member now and it passes.
That means that Britain will also foot the bill for the French position of keeping Greece in the eurozone at all costs.
It's an alarming precedent. It means the Eurozone is willing to act as a single bloc to spend EU-wide money. They don't quite yet have a QMV on their own, but it will only take one more nation to join the Euro and non-Euro members can be outvoted every time.
I'm APPALLED that he's even suggesting a *household levy*. A BBC Poll Tax in reality. Which numpty thinks that's better than at least not having a TV at all?
He can bugger right off if that's more than a filler notion.
So far, basically Whittingdale is saying little to no change in funding etc. He is kicking the idea of subscription in the long long grass and no decriminalization. All the luvies can stop their incessant tweeting now.
No decriminalization? Sounds like the government has bottled it here. What a shame.
There are plenty of Tories who talk tough but act tame.
I'd like to say London doesn't deserve Galloway, but..
How on Earth does Galloway get 21%? I hate to think the Islamist vote is that large in London.
It isn't but that person is voting multiple times...........
Yep - it's a classic voodoo poll, and its easy to vote multiple times if you don't store cookies. I love the recollection of the Daily Express one where they asked readers whether they thought British residents or visiting gypsies should get priority for health care: someone organised a serious voodoo operation and 95% voted to give priority to gypsies :-).
Sort of on topic, I think the Corbyn price is now too short. He's doing well, but not that well.
She's talking about the corrupt Muslim voting patterns I think nick
The corrupt Tower Hamlets voting patterns, to be precise.
And it was (slightly) tongue in cheek.
Still the gypsy story is quite funny. Didn't the same happen with Brunel when he came 2nd in the BBC's Greatest Briton series? Lots of engineers and others told all their mates and got him a very big vote so that he got pretty close to Churchill.
This bridging loan could cause #Brexit. It has absolutely confirmed three major eurosceptic arguments:
1) The EU is completely willing to tear up previous agreements it has made with Britain just a few years later if they're not enshrined in treaties. 2) The Eurozone is willing to spend EU-wide money on Eurozone bailouts 3) The Eurozone has started agreeing a single position before EU votes, so it can ram things through as a bloc and non-Euro members are completely sidelined. With just one more Eurozone member, the non-Euro countries won't be able to stop any measure they come up with.
I'd like to say London doesn't deserve Galloway, but..
How on Earth does Galloway get 21%? I hate to think the Islamist vote is that large in London.
It isn't but that person is voting multiple times...........
Yep - it's a classic voodoo poll, and its easy to vote multiple times if you don't store cookies. I love the recollection of the Daily Express one where they asked readers whether they thought British residents or visiting gypsies should get priority for health care: someone organised a serious voodoo operation and 95% voted to give priority to gypsies :-).
Sort of on topic, I think the Corbyn price is now too short. He's doing well, but not that well.
She's talking about the corrupt Muslim voting patterns I think nick
The corrupt Tower Hamlets voting patterns, to be precise.
And it was (slightly) tongue in cheek.
Still the gypsy story is quite funny. Didn't the same happen with Brunel when he came 2nd in the BBC's Greatest Briton series? Lots of engineers and others told all their mates and got him a very big vote so that he got pretty close to Churchill.
Brunel is very deservedly the 2nd greatest Briton.
Such mixed feelings about the BBC. Infuriating but also wonderful. A very big part of our cultural heritage.
Why? What's wonderful about the current BBC output?
Why should we be forced on pain of jail to pay for a broadcasting museum?
There are many reasons to be proud of the BBC. I'm currently listening to TMS. Radio 4, the world service, the natural history section, Open University programming, the news service (even if you think it is overly liberal), excellent drama (on the whole - yes there are some shockers) , same can be said of the comedy output.
Oh, and for me - Dr Who.
Much of the above is only possible due to unique way it is funded.
But even I can't defend the threat of jail if you don't pay.
SO is right though, woe betide any government that makes stuff harder/more expensive.
**The current licence fee is, in my opinion, excellent value.
I get lost in the acronym soup of the EU - but all this hoopla is firmly convincing me that rules aren't rules, agreements aren't honoured and whatever concessions the PM can get - they're not worth anything in reality if the EU does what it wants anyway.
I'm 9/10 certain to vote Out as things stand now. Promises vs Actions - I know what speaks louder on the credibility stakes.
Wow. The Eurozone ministers have all agreed they will support using the EU-wide EFSM fund for Greece, so they have a common position before the European Council vote on Friday:
This is exactly what eurosceptics said would happen, wasn't it? The Eurozone forms a co-ordinated position and then uses that bloc vote to get it through. Apparently they only need one non-EZ member now and it passes.
That means that Britain will also foot the bill for the French position of keeping Greece in the eurozone at all costs.
It's an alarming precedent. It means the Eurozone is willing to act as a single bloc to spend EU-wide money. They don't quite yet have a QMV on their own, but it will only take one more nation to join the Euro and non-Euro members can be outvoted every time.
The thing is that amid the Greek financial crisis, the med migrant crisis etc Cameron is going to campaign that we stay in.. Because the tax payer is going to stop subsidising Bulgarians wages
There's nothing wrong with liberal bias in the BBC. It counteracts the conservative bias in the Telegraph and the reality bias in the New Scientist. Just as the Church of England performs a valuable service in giving nice middle-class atheists a welcoming place to sit on a Sunday, the BBC gives nice middle-class gentlefolk a cake and gardening comfort zone. This is a valuable thing.
(It occurs to me that although I started this response in mockery, I may actually be sincere at this point. I don't know if it's possible to be sarcastic and nonsarcastic simultaneously, but assume I am here)
This bridging loan could cause #Brexit. It has absolutely confirmed three major eurosceptic arguments:
1) The EU is completely willing to tear up previous agreements it has made with Britain just a few years later if they're not enshrined in treaties. 2) The Eurozone is willing to spend EU-wide money on Eurozone bailouts 3) The Eurozone has started agreeing a single position before EU votes, so it can ram things through as a bloc and non-Euro members are completely sidelined. With just one more Eurozone member, the non-Euro countries won't be able to stop any measure they come up with.
This is true. And has pretty much pushed me to the OUT even though I was marginally IN before and wanted a decent renegotiation. Nothing the EU promises can be believed, so no renegotiation is valid, and OUT is the vote.
Based on some of the comments here, I am not the only one moving in this direction.
I wonder how many "shy BOOers" there are going to be come referendum day?
The Eurozone has trampled over Greece like a well worn doormat, because when push came to shove the Greeks were prepared to stay in the Euro at any cost. So perhaps a proper negotiation of trade and so forth deals with our European allies can only take place if we vote to leave the EU.
This bridging loan could cause #Brexit. It has absolutely confirmed three major eurosceptic arguments:
1) The EU is completely willing to tear up previous agreements it has made with Britain just a few years later if they're not enshrined in treaties. 2) The Eurozone is willing to spend EU-wide money on Eurozone bailouts 3) The Eurozone has started agreeing a single position before EU votes, so it can ram things through as a bloc and non-Euro members are completely sidelined. With just one more Eurozone member, the non-Euro countries won't be able to stop any measure they come up with.
This is true. And has pretty much pushed me to the OUT even though I was marginally IN before and wanted a decent renegotiation. Nothing the EU promises can be believed, so no renegotiation is valid, and OUT is the vote.
Based on some of the comments here, I am not the only one moving in this direction.
I wonder how many "shy BOOers" there are going to be come referendum day?
This bridging loan could cause #Brexit. It has absolutely confirmed three major eurosceptic arguments:
1) The EU is completely willing to tear up previous agreements it has made with Britain just a few years later if they're not enshrined in treaties. 2) The Eurozone is willing to spend EU-wide money on Eurozone bailouts 3) The Eurozone has started agreeing a single position before EU votes, so it can ram things through as a bloc and non-Euro members are completely sidelined. With just one more Eurozone member, the non-Euro countries won't be able to stop any measure they come up with.
This is true. And has pretty much pushed me to the OUT even though I was marginally IN before and wanted a decent renegotiation. Nothing the EU promises can be believed, so no renegotiation is valid, and OUT is the vote.
Based on some of the comments here, I am not the only one moving in this direction.
I wonder how many "shy BOOers" there are going to be come referendum day?
Comments
R5 had a lovely voxpox this morning where they found nobody, absolutely nobody, who had anything bad to say about the BBC. Not a single thing, like oh I would love to see more live sport on the BBC. Nope, nothing. Even found a couple who pay £140 a year even though they don't watch tv or listen to the radio, because they love BBC weather app.
IPSA goes ahead with bumper 10% pay rise for MPs - rises to £74K
Cages about to be rattled.
History repeats itself.
On first preferences it is Burnham 39%, Corbyn 33%, Cooper 25%, Kendall 4%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741659/Jeremy-Corbyn-set-to-win-Labour-leadership-shock-poll-reveals.html
Cameron has apparently urged Corbyn to follow his 2005 campaign
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11742550/David-Cameron-admits-he-is-forcing-through-controversial-policies-while-Labour-is-in-disarray.html
England will do very well not to lose this game. As you say, batting last is going to be tricky. It will almost certainly spin pretty sharply. They need to score a lot of runs in the first innings and take up a good part of two days doing it. If they manage it, I reckon they will be over halfway to winning the Ashes back.
So the BBC are paying large amounts of money to lobby politicians to give them more money? It really does sound like there is significant room for cuts. Organizations getting money from the taxpayer should not be allowed to lobby.
If you want to keep up to date with Mr Hannan's thinking, I recommend his "Ici Londres" videos posted quite frequently on his Youtube Channel. For example this recent missive on the Greece fiasco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwcyTYGgfxQ
The cost of a stamp, surely?
"Organizations getting money from the taxpayer should not be allowed to lobby."
A key principle. But the BBC Chairman and Trust seem to be incapable of overseeing. Some form of organisation capture at work? We had Fatty Patty spitting blood earlier today.
On topic Curtis's GE2015 poll post-mortem found that:
" On Labour and the SNP, however, the record is not quite so good. All three polls overestimated Labour support, on average by 2.0 points, only slightly less than the average 2.4 point discrepancy in the estimate of Labour support in the GB-wide polls. At the same time all three slightly underestimated SNP support. "
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/05/how-accurate-were-the-general-election-polls-in-scotland/
I think it's quite likely that the recent Scottish polls will still have this SLAB bias.
Edit: removed previous quotes which were broken.
England out to 11/2 already, surely a little value in that? Aussies odds-on now, after an hour!
Ali can do no wrong it seems...
There's also the preparation of the materials, which presumably involved several people. Then there's the salary of the man on 300k a year spending his time to get various current and previous employees of the BBC to use their fame to go on a PR push.
'If Cameron and Osborne are clever they would simply change the Fixed Parliaments Act and call an election in 3/4 years time with Corbyn still at the helm, crushing Labour to an even worse defeat than 2015 in the process! '
Somehow I don't think the Lords would let that through!
(I would sell off the BBC)
The BBC haters' main problem is that most voters do not hate the BBC and do actually place some value on it, even if it annoys them from time to time. It's all very well saying the BBC should not produce "popular" programmes; but if it doesn't, who will? The schedules of the free to air channels are already full, so that leaves subscription channels. In the end, therefore, what may happen is people paying more to watch the likes of East Enders and Sherlock than they do now. That will not be popular.
The Football Association said it had carried out a "thorough" investigation into the language used in the messages.
It found "the communications were sent with a legitimate expectation of privacy".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33546794
Now it's a tax because it is imposed even if we completely avoid the BBC in the multi-channel age, which many do.
Another piece of the last century that some aren't willing to let go of even though it's clearly outmoded.
On Corbyn, the last yougov Labour leadership poll had him on 8% in Scotland, double the 4% he was on in the UK as a whole. He was on double Kendall's score of 4% north of the border and only just behind Burnham on 9% and Cooper on 10%
https://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/?page=7
Your average subscription is voluntary, is not extracted under threat of criminal sanction, and buys you a particular good or service. The license fee is a tax on television use.
(Nor do BBC executives, as many BBC presenters have complained.)
1) Millions of taxpayers do not pay corporation tax. Millions of taxpayers do not pay inheritance tax. That does not mean they are not taxes.
2) The logic of "The licence fee is not a tax because non-taxpayers pay it" is complete circular reasoning. It's only true if you have already accepted the licence fee is not a tax. It can not be used to back up that belief.
Let us look at the actual definition of a tax:
tax
taks/Submit
noun
1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
Can anyone really deny that the licence fee fits that definition?
My main point is that for the Tories to be successful in downsizing the BBC and reducing its influence, they will need to find a way that does not lessen choice and/or increase viewer costs. That is going to be very tricky.
The licence fee is so evidently a tax it damages people's credibility when they try to claim otherwise. It is like claiming the sky is green.
He can bugger right off if that's more than a filler notion.
For the politicians, axing the BBC's most popular programmes might be a courageous step. As for ITV and Channel 5, perhaps the reason for their lower viewing figures is because the BBC makes better programmes. Without that competition, the other broadcasters' output might get even worse.
Does the BBC need reform? Probably. Would we have started from here? No. But remember many of the critics want to see the BBC hobbled so they can make more money, and not for any altruistic reasons.
This is a bit like all that nonsense of ISIL or ISIS or Islamic State. The issue isn't what you call them, it is that they are a terrorist organisation and we shouldn't be "providing balance" when it comes to things like that.
The issues for me with the BBC is that
a) the funding model is not fit for the 21st century, both morally and also technologically
b) they are claiming no money, but increasing staff number, management pay / number is still way too much and getting involved in vanity projects that have nothing to do with programming e.g. the BBC micro:bit
c) there is a liberal bias in the news coverage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33546352
This is exactly what eurosceptics said would happen, wasn't it? The Eurozone forms a co-ordinated position and then uses that bloc vote to get it through. Apparently they only need one non-EZ member now and it passes.
All this 'Strictly' stuff is such bullshit. If the programme is popular, and there's a market demand for it; it will be made. If it's crap, people will not pay for it.
The attachment most people have to the BBC is institutional sentimentalism combined with the fact its programmes have no adverts.
Sort of on topic, I think the Corbyn price is now too short. He's doing well, but not that well.
No surprise, I said it on election night that differential turnout was the main problem, when I looked at the turnout figures that where very out of line from the predicted ones.
If they're going to play silly buggers, so can we.
I'm 9/10 certain to vote Out as things stand now. Promises vs Actions - I know what speaks louder on the credibility stakes.
Why should we be forced on pain of jail to pay for a broadcasting museum?
And it was (slightly) tongue in cheek.
Still the gypsy story is quite funny. Didn't the same happen with Brunel when he came 2nd in the BBC's Greatest Briton series? Lots of engineers and others told all their mates and got him a very big vote so that he got pretty close to Churchill.
This bridging loan could cause #Brexit. It has absolutely confirmed three major eurosceptic arguments:
1) The EU is completely willing to tear up previous agreements it has made with Britain just a few years later if they're not enshrined in treaties.
2) The Eurozone is willing to spend EU-wide money on Eurozone bailouts
3) The Eurozone has started agreeing a single position before EU votes, so it can ram things through as a bloc and non-Euro members are completely sidelined. With just one more Eurozone member, the non-Euro countries won't be able to stop any measure they come up with.
Oh, and for me - Dr Who.
Much of the above is only possible due to unique way it is funded.
But even I can't defend the threat of jail if you don't pay.
SO is right though, woe betide any government that makes stuff harder/more expensive.
**The current licence fee is, in my opinion, excellent value.
(It occurs to me that although I started this response in mockery, I may actually be sincere at this point. I don't know if it's possible to be sarcastic and nonsarcastic simultaneously, but assume I am here)
This is true. And has pretty much pushed me to the OUT even though I was marginally IN before and wanted a decent renegotiation. Nothing the EU promises can be believed, so no renegotiation is valid, and OUT is the vote.
Based on some of the comments here, I am not the only one moving in this direction.
I wonder how many "shy BOOers" there are going to be come referendum day?
So perhaps a proper negotiation of trade and so forth deals with our European allies can only take place if we vote to leave the EU.
BOOers need a different frontman to Farage et al.