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.
Either you're obtuse or dense but there is a huge difference with regard to the source of the money. I suspect it's both.
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.
He had to make a U-turn on (7 ft) Broad Gauge however.
You're the fourth person on here who has switched from In to Out in the last week. I think you've swung further than I have. I would vote in if we could get a double QMV system and it enshrined in treaty change. I think Cameron probably won't get that, but he has outperformed my expectations before. Even people like TheScreamingEagles who were very strongly In are now considering things.
This is all very, very dangerous for the Conservatives. By the time of the referendum, it could be only the most loyalist Conservative supporters that will go with Cameron's recommendation. If the top brass all campaign for In - especially if they do so through misleading or deceptive arguments - they could lose vast amounts of trust with their base whatever the result. Right now a lot of people are put off UKIP by Farage, but I suspect he will resign after the refendum, in victory or defeat. It could be a Scottish Labour situation, and once people make the emotional break it is hard for them to go back.
I could also see the most effective Out Conservative winning the next leadership election, whether it is Hammond, Boris, Patel or Kwarteng.
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?
Portillo
Kate Hoey. Whoever it is, the Out campaign needs to get itself sorted. They should have had a representative to go on all the TV channels over this deal, but they are ceding the argument to UKIP, and most people tune out to them.
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?
Portillo
Did Peterborough to Leicester for the first time on Monday. Saw Burleigh House near Stamford, and the start of the Old Dalby test track near Melton Mowbray. Also passed through Rutland and its "capital" Oakham.
Also saw "Sir Bobby Robson" twice, at King's Cross, and at Peterborough!
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.
If you think it's excellent value, good for you. You should be free to make that choice. But we're not. We're forced to pay for it whether we want to or not.
I rarely watch the BBC. The news is no better than ITN. It's GE output was awful. Sport coverage is nothing special.
The drama I find poor, or just running legacy brands. Dr Who dates from the 1960s. Poldark from the 1970s, and they can't be arsed to make more than 3 episodes of Sherlock at a time.
But, hey? David Attenborough is good. So I guess that's something.
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.
Why couldn't TMS be provided commercially on a station like TalkSport with adverts between the overs like on Sky Sports? I don't think a poll tax is necessary to provide that.
Radio 4 - never listened to that, don't listen to BBC radio. You like it, great - why don't you pay for it. I listen to commercial radio when I'm in the car but still have nearly a quarter of my telly tax go on the radio. Its absurd. If it was up to me not a single penny of TV Poll Tax would go on radio services.
Dr Who - sold and shown commercially across the globe but can't be funded commercially in the UK? Come off it.
I am most sympathetic to BOO, and have been for a while. I even voted UKIP at the Euros in May 2014 - but felt conflicted enough about Nige to vote Tory in the Locals on the same day
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.
If you think it's excellent value, good for you. You should be free to make that choice. But we're not. We're forced to pay for it whether we want to or not.
I rarely watch the BBC. The news is no better than ITN. It's GE output was awful. Sport coverage is nothing special.
The drama I find poor, or just running legacy brands. Dr Who dates from the 1960s. Poldark from the 1970s, and they can't be arsed to make more than 3 episodes of Sherlock at a time.
But, hey? David Attenborough is good. So I guess that's something.
Even David Attenborough's shows are being funded by Sky more and more often now.
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.
He had to make a U-turn on (7 ft) Broad Gauge however.
Isambard was right on that too. Our railways would have been in a much better state had we gone for it.
Besides which.. Any great man, or woman, tries many things and has a few spectacular failures. Atmospheric railways were another.
It's that energy, inspiration, leadership and creativeness that makes them great.
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.
If you think it's excellent value, good for you. You should be free to make that choice. But we're not. We're forced to pay for it whether we want to or not.
I rarely watch the BBC. The news is no better than ITN. It's GE output was awful. Sport coverage is nothing special.
The drama I find poor, or just running legacy brands. Dr Who dates from the 1960s. Poldark from the 1970s, and they can't be arsed to make more than 3 episodes of Sherlock at a time.
But, hey? David Attenborough is good. So I guess that's something.
I don't get criminal proceedings if I don't subscribe to SKY.
Why should it be the case for the, ah, state broadcaster?
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.
He had to make a U-turn on (7 ft) Broad Gauge however.
Isambard was right on that too. Our railways would have been in a much better state had we gone for it.
Besides which.. Any great man, or woman, tries many things and has a few spectacular failures. Atmospheric railways were another.
It's that energy, inspiration, leadership and creativeness that makes them great.
Broad gauge is still used (albeit not as broad as 7ft!) for the main rail networks in Ireland north and south (5 ft 3 in), and in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka (5ft 6 in).
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?
Portillo
Kate Hoey. Whoever it is, the Out campaign needs to get itself sorted. They should have had a representative to go on all the TV channels over this deal, but they are ceding the argument to UKIP, and most people tune out to them.
Yes I agree
But Tories aren't allowed to campaign until they've seen the 'renegotiation'...
Would be best coming from a non or ex politician anyway, and to most people Portillo is a well mannered smoothie who is on the telly. Plenty of my friends and family who've no interest in politics love him
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)
Ok, I'll assume that.
I am forced on pain of imprisonment to pay for the conservative bias of the Telegraph, or the reality bias of the New Scientist? Do the authorities send me threatening letters even if I have no intention of ever reading any newspaper publication?
No, they do not. No political point of view has a right to be broadcast, or heard, or the general public forced to pay for it if they do not agree and wish to hear it. It's fundamentally anti-democratic.
But you point out neatly precisely why so many conservatives detest the BBC.
European judges agree with British courts and throw out right-to-die case brought by paralysed ex-builder and widow of man who had locked-in syndrome
Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson's claim 'unanimously' rejected by judges Mr Lamb and Tony Nicklinson's widow want right to die legalised in UK Daughter Lauren says 'cruel' decision will not end their campaign
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?
Portillo
Kate Hoey. Whoever it is, the Out campaign needs to get itself sorted. They should have had a representative to go on all the TV channels over this deal, but they are ceding the argument to UKIP, and most people tune out to them.
Yes I agree
But Tories aren't allowed to campaign until they've seen the 'renegotiation'...
Would be best coming from a non or ex politician anyway, and to most people Portillo is a well mannered smoothie who is on the telly. Plenty of my friends and family who've no interest in politics love him
I suspect Portillo has less appeal outside the south east of England.
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?
Portillo
Kate Hoey. Whoever it is, the Out campaign needs to get itself sorted. They should have had a representative to go on all the TV channels over this deal, but they are ceding the argument to UKIP, and most people tune out to them.
Yes I agree
But Tories aren't allowed to campaign until they've seen the 'renegotiation'...
Would be best coming from a non or ex politician anyway, and to most people Portillo is a well mannered smoothie who is on the telly. Plenty of my friends and family who've no interest in politics love him
I suspect Portillo has less appeal outside the south east of England.
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.
He had to make a U-turn on (7 ft) Broad Gauge however.
Isambard was right on that too. Our railways would have been in a much better state had we gone for it.
Besides which.. Any great man, or woman, tries many things and has a few spectacular failures. Atmospheric railways were another.
It's that energy, inspiration, leadership and creativeness that makes them great.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Broad gauge costs so much more to build that we would not have had many of the lines built (it would also have been limited wrt curves, which is why many mountain lines were narrow gauge).
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
In the News was a protest over the MoJ making cuts in spending which was falling on the pot for legal aid fees. Yes savings need to be found. But oh dear one area for savings was dropped today.
Prosecuting licence fee dodgers makes up 10% of the number of cases prosecuted by the CPS paid for by the MoJ. Today a barrister produces a report which recommends carrying on prosecuting 180,000 people a year for failure to pay licence fees and which eventually leads to over 30 people (mainly women) going to jail. The scale of the number of lives blighted by this criminalisation and the cost that falls on the MoJ beggars belief. One day a tv channel will make a series of programmes about it....
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.
He had to make a U-turn on (7 ft) Broad Gauge however.
Isambard was right on that too. Our railways would have been in a much better state had we gone for it.
Besides which.. Any great man, or woman, tries many things and has a few spectacular failures. Atmospheric railways were another.
It's that energy, inspiration, leadership and creativeness that makes them great.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Broad gauge costs so much more to build that we would not have had many of the lines built (it would also have been limited wrt curves, which is why many mountain lines were narrow gauge).
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
You're the fourth person on here who has switched from In to Out in the last week. I think you've swung further than I have. I would vote in if we could get a double QMV system and it enshrined in treaty change. I think Cameron probably won't get that, but he has outperformed my expectations before. Even people like TheScreamingEagles who were very strongly In are now considering things.
This is all very, very dangerous for the Conservatives. By the time of the referendum, it could be only the most loyalist Conservative supporters that will go with Cameron's recommendation. If the top brass all campaign for In - especially if they do so through misleading or deceptive arguments - they could lose vast amounts of trust with their base whatever the result. Right now a lot of people are put off UKIP by Farage, but I suspect he will resign after the refendum, in victory or defeat. It could be a Scottish Labour situation, and once people make the emotional break it is hard for them to go back.
I could also see the most effective Out Conservative winning the next leadership election, whether it is Hammond, Boris, Patel or Kwarteng.
I think it's more like a typical phenomenon familiar from recent elections. Tories say that this time they'll vote Ukip, right up to election day. Unlike ex-Labour voters who actually do vote Ukip.
Similarly, everyone is offended by the innard workings of the sausage factory at the moment and are saying they are done with sausages. But when it comes to the decision about eating a sausage, they might think differently.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Broad gauge costs so much more to build that we would not have had many of the lines built (it would also have been limited wrt curves, which is why many mountain lines were narrow gauge).
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
During the First World War?
Much, much earlier.
Edit: as a hint, I think the same act introduced a piece of legislation that is till relevant to railway timetabling today, and is much beloved of enthusiasts who want to visit certain pieces of route. Such as yourself.
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?
Portillo
Kate Hoey. Whoever it is, the Out campaign needs to get itself sorted. They should have had a representative to go on all the TV channels over this deal, but they are ceding the argument to UKIP, and most people tune out to them.
William Hague would be an interesting head of the No campaign. If he had the interest.
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
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
Brunel is very deservedly the 2nd greatest Briton.
He had to make a U-turn on (7 ft) Broad Gauge however.
Isambard was right on that too. Our railways would have been in a much better state had we gone for it.
Besides which.. Any great man, or woman, tries many things and has a few spectacular failures. Atmospheric railways were another.
It's that energy, inspiration, leadership and creativeness that makes them great.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Broad gauge costs so much more to build that we would not have had many of the lines built (it would also have been limited wrt curves, which is why many mountain lines were narrow gauge).
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
I am actually a civil engineer by profession, and work on rail projects, so know a bit about this. The upfront land purchase and capital costs would be slightly higher. But the engines could also run faster, more stable and smoothly, and carry more people in more comfort. So subsequent redevelopment costs of existing infrastructure (which are today, massive) would be far lower.
The Great Western railway remains one of the best engineered railways in the world.
You try contacting any other professional at the weekend out of hours: lawyers, teachers, accountants, stockbrokers, bankers etc and tell me how you get on!
I regularly interact with clients, my partners and management over the weekend.
It's relatively rare to have a weekend without a call, or at least an extended email conversation. My first call this morning, for instance, was at 5am.
"French ferry workers occupying two ships in protest against job losses are said to have run amok - drinking the bar dry and causing criminal damage.
The Rodin and Berlioz, which operated under the MyFerryLink brand, have been occupied since the beginning of the month at Calais. Strikers are angry with the proposed lease of the vessels to Danish operator DFDS.
The boats were due to have been transferred to DFDS on July 2 after owners Eurotunnel decided to close its MyFerryLink business."
If you think it's excellent value, good for you. You should be free to make that choice. But we're not. We're forced to pay for it whether we want to or not.
I rarely watch the BBC. The news is no better than ITN. It's GE output was awful. Sport coverage is nothing special.
The drama I find poor, or just running legacy brands. Dr Who dates from the 1960s. Poldark from the 1970s, and they can't be arsed to make more than 3 episodes of Sherlock at a time.
But, hey? David Attenborough is good. So I guess that's something.
Why couldn't TMS be provided commercially on a station like TalkSport with adverts between the overs like on Sky Sports? I don't think a poll tax is necessary to provide that.
Radio 4 - never listened to that, don't listen to BBC radio. You like it, great - why don't you pay for it. I listen to commercial radio when I'm in the car but still have nearly a quarter of my telly tax go on the radio. Its absurd. If it was up to me not a single penny of TV Poll Tax would go on radio services.
Dr Who - sold and shown commercially across the globe but can't be funded commercially in the UK? Come off it.
I did say in my post that I can't defend the nature of the licence fee. It should be subscription based. I would be happy to pay. If the move to subscription meant they would have to do a bit less, then I would be ok with that so long as what they lost was the stuff I don't currently consume ;-)
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
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
Brunel is very deservedly the 2nd greatest Briton.
He had to make a U-turn on (7 ft) Broad Gauge however.
Isambard was right on that too. Our railways would have been in a much better state had we gone for it.
Besides which.. Any great man, or woman, tries many things and has a few spectacular failures. Atmospheric railways were another.
It's that energy, inspiration, leadership and creativeness that makes them great.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Broad gauge costs so much more to build that we would not have had many of the lines built (it would also have been limited wrt curves, which is why many mountain lines were narrow gauge).
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
I am actually a civil engineer by profession, and work on rail projects, so know a bit about this. The upfront land purchase and capital costs would be slightly higher. But the engines could also run faster, more stable and smoothly, and carry more people in more comfort. So subsequent redevelopment costs of existing infrastructure (which are today, massive) would be far lower.
The Great Western railway remains one of the best engineered railways in the world.
A pity they closed the Great Central Railway north of Quainton Road.
Life saving work is covered by existing emergency rotas, as are post op infections.
What the government is talking about is NON-emergency work. Is it not unreasonable to expect someone troubled by bunnions to wait until a weekday? Or to have their annual diabetes review? Or to get a new hearing aid fitted?
It's about capacity utilisation.
If you have an expensive facility (OR, MRI, whatever) it makes sense to maximise the use of the facility. If you don't use it 2 days of the week, close to 30% of the potential value from the capital investment is wasted.
"French ferry workers occupying two ships in protest against job losses are said to have run amok - drinking the bar dry and causing criminal damage.
The Rodin and Berlioz, which operated under the MyFerryLink brand, have been occupied since the beginning of the month at Calais. Strikers are angry with the proposed lease of the vessels to Danish operator DFDS.
The boats were due to have been transferred to DFDS on July 2 after owners Eurotunnel decided to close its MyFerryLink business."
Clearly time for the Eurozone leaders to step in and force draconian union reform on....
I am actually a civil engineer by profession, and work on rail projects, so know a bit about this. The upfront land purchase and capital costs would be slightly higher. But the engines could also run faster, more stable and smoothly, and carry more people in more comfort. So subsequent redevelopment costs of existing infrastructure (which are today, massive) would be far lower.
The Great Western railway remains one of the best engineered railways in the world.
I am very jealous. One of my biggest regrets in life was that I did not complete my geo eng studies, although the reasons for my not completing them were rather forced on me.
I agree with the advantages, but it is not just about land costs: narrower railways can wind more easily around hills, avoiding some large civil engineering works.
If broad gauge had become the standard, many lines would not have been economic to build, especially in upland areas.
Then again, although I admire Brunel, I am not a fan of the GWR and its coppertop adherents. It's Midland Crimson all the way for me! And we won the gauge war at Gloucester!
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Broad gauge costs so much more to build that we would not have had many of the lines built (it would also have been limited wrt curves, which is why many mountain lines were narrow gauge).
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
During the First World War?
Much, much earlier.
Edit: as a hint, I think the same act introduced a piece of legislation that is till relevant to railway timetabling today, and is much beloved of enthusiasts who want to visit certain pieces of route. Such as yourself.
I noticed yesterday that ITV are offering all their catch-up advert free for £3.99pcm. I'm not sure if this includes ITV Encore that is shown on Sky as a channel. TBH, I see so many adverts for Sky channels on other channels - I get quite confused. The notion of The Other Side as ITV used to be called is dead
If you think it's excellent value, good for you. You should be free to make that choice. But we're not. We're forced to pay for it whether we want to or not.
I rarely watch the BBC. The news is no better than ITN. It's GE output was awful. Sport coverage is nothing special.
The drama I find poor, or just running legacy brands. Dr Who dates from the 1960s. Poldark from the 1970s, and they can't be arsed to make more than 3 episodes of Sherlock at a time.
But, hey? David Attenborough is good. So I guess that's something.
Why couldn't TMS be provided commercially on a station like TalkSport with adverts between the overs like on Sky Sports? I don't think a poll tax is necessary to provide that.
Radio 4 - never listened to that, don't listen to BBC radio. You like it, great - why don't you pay for it. I listen to commercial radio when I'm in the car but still have nearly a quarter of my telly tax go on the radio. Its absurd. If it was up to me not a single penny of TV Poll Tax would go on radio services.
Dr Who - sold and shown commercially across the globe but can't be funded commercially in the UK? Come off it.
I did say in my post that I can't defend the nature of the licence fee. It should be subscription based. I would be happy to pay. If the move to subscription meant they would have to do a bit less, then I would be ok with that so long as what they lost was the stuff I don't currently consume ;-)
I am actually a civil engineer by profession, and work on rail projects, so know a bit about this. The upfront land purchase and capital costs would be slightly higher. But the engines could also run faster, more stable and smoothly, and carry more people in more comfort. So subsequent redevelopment costs of existing infrastructure (which are today, massive) would be far lower.
The Great Western railway remains one of the best engineered railways in the world.
I am very jealous. One of my biggest regrets in life was that I did not complete my geo eng studies, although the reasons for my not completing them were rather forced on me.
I agree with the advantages, but it is not just about land costs: narrower railways can wind more easily around hills, avoiding some large civil engineering works.
If broad gauge had become the standard, many lines would not have been economic to build, especially in upland areas.
Then again, although I admire Brunel, I am not a fan of the GWR and its coppertop adherents. It's Midland Crimson all the way for me! And we won the gauge war at Gloucester!
I did Peterborough to Leicester for the first time on Monday. Also have designs on the Welland Viaduct between Oakham and Corby, there are two evening trains that run in daylight each way at this time of year!
"This is relatively good news for pollsters..." But bad news too, since they (or at least some of them) ought to have known this from their own analysis already and been adjusting for it already. The strengthening of this phenomenon was known, partly from evidence and partly from intuition, to quite a lot of PB pundits, and it seems shocking that they should have more nous than the people who are actually paid to do the job.
Life saving work is covered by existing emergency rotas, as are post op infections.
What the government is talking about is NON-emergency work. Is it not unreasonable to expect someone troubled by bunnions to wait until a weekday? Or to have their annual diabetes review? Or to get a new hearing aid fitted?
It's about capacity utilisation.
If you have an expensive facility (OR, MRI, whatever) it makes sense to maximise the use of the facility. If you don't use it 2 days of the week, close to 30% of the potential value from the capital investment is wasted.
The alternative is to have to buy more equipment and spend more on hospital buildings to house the facilities that are only used for 5 days a week. When periods outside of 9-5pm are taken into account some resources are only being used for 24% of the time.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Broad gauge costs so much more to build that we would not have had many of the lines built (it would also have been limited wrt curves, which is why many mountain lines were narrow gauge).
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
During the First World War?
Much, much earlier.
Edit: as a hint, I think the same act introduced a piece of legislation that is till relevant to railway timetabling today, and is much beloved of enthusiasts who want to visit certain pieces of route. Such as yourself.
AIUI, the government were fed up with the early railways not doing their bit, so they put in place legislation to nationalise any railways that did not perform as expected (especially wrt finances). Rumour has it that the Railway King - George Hudson - intervened with Gladstone and had the legislation watered down - half the 48 clauses in the act were abandoned. Which was odd, as it was more or less targeted at him.
That part of the act was never used, and it did nothing to stop the railway manias and subsequent crashes.
It would be interesting to know hoe British railways - and indeed industry - would have developed if the act had not been watered down.
I am actually a civil engineer by profession, and work on rail projects, so know a bit about this. The upfront land purchase and capital costs would be slightly higher. But the engines could also run faster, more stable and smoothly, and carry more people in more comfort. So subsequent redevelopment costs of existing infrastructure (which are today, massive) would be far lower.
The Great Western railway remains one of the best engineered railways in the world.
I am very jealous. One of my biggest regrets in life was that I did not complete my geo eng studies, although the reasons for my not completing them were rather forced on me.
I agree with the advantages, but it is not just about land costs: narrower railways can wind more easily around hills, avoiding some large civil engineering works.
If broad gauge had become the standard, many lines would not have been economic to build, especially in upland areas.
Then again, although I admire Brunel, I am not a fan of the GWR and its coppertop adherents. It's Midland Crimson all the way for me! And we won the gauge war at Gloucester!
I did Peterborough to Leicester for the first time on Monday. Also have designs on the Welland Viaduct between Oakham and Corby, there are two evening trains that run in daylight each way at this time of year!
There's a brilliant bookshop at Stamford station that contains many railway books:
I am actually a civil engineer by profession, and work on rail projects, so know a bit about this. The upfront land purchase and capital costs would be slightly higher. But the engines could also run faster, more stable and smoothly, and carry more people in more comfort. So subsequent redevelopment costs of existing infrastructure (which are today, massive) would be far lower.
The Great Western railway remains one of the best engineered railways in the world.
I am very jealous. One of my biggest regrets in life was that I did not complete my geo eng studies, although the reasons for my not completing them were rather forced on me.
I agree with the advantages, but it is not just about land costs: narrower railways can wind more easily around hills, avoiding some large civil engineering works.
If broad gauge had become the standard, many lines would not have been economic to build, especially in upland areas.
Then again, although I admire Brunel, I am not a fan of the GWR and its coppertop adherents. It's Midland Crimson all the way for me! And we won the gauge war at Gloucester!
I did Peterborough to Leicester for the first time on Monday. Also have designs on the Welland Viaduct between Oakham and Corby, there are two evening trains that run in daylight each way at this time of year!
There's a brilliant bookshop at Stamford station that contains many railway books:
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.
The Eurozone doesn't need any non-EZ member. They already have the power.
The Annual report from the pro-EU "British Influence" organization states:
A new weighting of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council came into force in November 2014 as a result of changes agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon. QMV now requires the support of 55 per cent of the members of the Council and 65 per cent of the population of those Member States. This change means that the UK and other non-eurozone Member States could potentially be outvoted on Single Market matters by the eurozone if the latter votes as a bloc.
EDIT: Amusingly, in the light of recent events, the report then goes on to claim "However, in practice this is highly unlikely".
The only known historical atlas to the UK's railways is now available to buy - for the first time in ten years.
A unique, hand-traced item, the luxury history book, called The Railways of Great Britain: A Historical Atlas, contains 646 pages of maps, chronicling all train lines in operation from 1807 to 1994.
At £295 its not cheap, but probably not much more expensive than the stripogram plus his mum probably wouldn't object so much. So we could have a whip round to buy you know who a copy for his up-coming fortieth.
Lovely thought, thanks muchly, I already have the previous edition from IIRC 2008, which even then was £150.
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.
The Eurozone doesn't need any non-EZ member. They already have the power.
The Annual report from the pro-EU "British Influence" organization states:
A new weighting of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council came into force in November 2014 as a result of changes agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon. QMV now requires the support of 55 per cent of the members of the Council and 65 per cent of the population of those Member States. This change means that the UK and other non-eurozone Member States could potentially be outvoted on Single Market matters by the eurozone if the latter votes as a bloc.
EDIT: Amusingly, in the light of recent events, the report then goes on to claim "However, in practice this is highly unlikely".
Interesting. I had heard they needed one non-EZ member for the vote on Friday, but I can't remember where now. What's so worrying about this vote isn't just that the EZ members all voted together, but they specifically staged a call to ensure a united position beforehand. It's like the Franco-German axis writ large.
"Statement in response to Government Green Paper on the future of the BBC Date: 16.07.2015 Last updated: 16.07.2015 at 12.57 Category: Corporate The BBC has today released the following statement in response to the Government Green Paper on the future of the BBC.
The BBC is a creative and economic powerhouse for Britain. The starting point for any debate should be - how can a strong BBC benefit Britain even more at home and abroad? The BBC has embraced change in the past and will continue to do so in the future, and we will set out our own proposals in September.
We believe that this Green Paper would appear to herald a much diminished, less popular BBC. That would be bad for Britain and would not be the BBC that the public has known and loved for over 90 years.
It is important that we hear what the public want. It should be for the public to decide whether programmes like Strictly or Bake Off, or stations like Radio One or Two, should continue.
As the Director-General said on Tuesday, the BBC is not owned by its staff or by politicians, it is owned by the public. They are our shareholders. They pay the licence fee. Their voice should be heard the loudest.
BBC Press Office"
"economic powerhouse" ? What in that it relies on punters having to pony up with zero choice.
In that case the DVLA is an economic powerhouse for Britain.
The BBC has cut it's own throat - the garbage coverage of the Open and Wimbledon in the last 2 weeks is a pertinent example.
@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
To be fair, what he is saying is absolutely correct: homeo-meds work for some people.
Never under-estimate the power of the placebo affect
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.
Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well.
TFEU 125 says that the responsibility for repaying public debt remains national and prevents risk premiums caused by unsound fiscal policies from spilling over to partner countries. How did that work out ?
TFEU 123 prohibits monetary financing of budget deficits
Almost everyone has been ignoring the convergence criteria in TFEU protocols 12 and 13 pretty much since the euro started, and many of the Eurozone countries are in violation of the Stability and Growth Pact, and have been for a number of years without any of the proscribed penalties.
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
And he probably wont get that since it is generally agreed to need a treaty change which France has said it will veto, and Poland (and I believe at least one of the Balkan countries) has said that any benefit restrictions on immigrants is an absolute red line.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
There are currently 224 comments under the BBC letter story in the Times - I'd say its 95% against the BBC's self image.
Now maybe Times readers are disproportionately anti-BBC because they love Uncle Rupert - but I doubt it to this extent.
The Beeb are really getting this wrong. As someone pointed out yesterday - they're also using very strange ways to mislead readers that more people wouldn't rather see adverts or sub rather than pay TVLF.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
But where are the teats?
I think they are the ones sitting around the table at the EU Commission, they seem a right bunch of teats!
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
But where are the teats?
You seem to be milking this one a bit..
Do you think he's "udder" suspicion?
Was easy to miss the typo the first time around - it was pasturised before you knew it.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
But where are the teats?
You seem to be milking this one a bit..
Do you think he's "udder" suspicion?
Was easy to miss the typo the first time around - it was pasturised before you knew it.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
But where are the teats?
You seem to be milking this one a bit..
Do you think he's "udder" suspicion?
Was easy to miss the typo the first time around - it was pasturised before you knew it.
Indigo "Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well."
Que?
The Greece bailout is completely illegal under TFEU 123 and 125, and yet it still seems to happening, they just ignore the inconvenient bits of treaties, like any other document. If we get a treaty as part of the renegotiation the inconvenient bits of that will get ignored in due course as well.
But where are the teats?
I think they are the ones sitting around the table at the EU Commission, they seem a right bunch of teats!
If it were democratic, Germans could vote a financial transactions tax on Britain to pay for French farmers.
It's undemocratic and that suits British interests perfectly.
The EU has a mix of : - democratic elements (decisions can be taken by QMV), and - undemocratic - where national vetoes are still allowed (though this latter area is getting smaller all the time)
The FTT was was approved by the European Parliament in December 2012, and by the Council of Ministers in January 2013. It has been delayed by disagreement over the scope of the tax and British legal challenges - which to date have been rejected by the ECJ(what a surprise!)
Whether democratic or undemocratic is irrelevant. It does not "suit British interests perfectly" in either form.
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.
Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well.
TFEU 125 says that the responsibility for repaying public debt remains national and prevents risk premiums caused by unsound fiscal policies from spilling over to partner countries. How did that work out ?
TFEU 123 prohibits monetary financing of budget deficits
Almost everyone has been ignoring the convergence criteria in TFEU protocols 12 and 13 pretty much since the euro started, and many of the Eurozone countries are in violation of the Stability and Growth Pact, and have been for a number of years without any of the proscribed penalties.
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
And he probably wont get that since it is generally agreed to need a treaty change which France has said it will veto, and Poland (and I believe at least one of the Balkan countries) has said that any benefit restrictions on immigrants is an absolute red line.
Apart from that, no problem at all
So: this morning you quoted Philippe Legrain, about how the Eurozone was being too harsh in enforcing fiscal compliance.
And now you arguing the Eurozone is being too lax.
Either case, on its own, is logically consistent. But you cannot argue both.
Which is it: is the Eurozone being too harsh or too lax?
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.
Almost, they are completely willing to teat up treaties as well.
TFEU 125 says that the responsibility for repaying public debt remains national and prevents risk premiums caused by unsound fiscal policies from spilling over to partner countries. How did that work out ?
TFEU 123 prohibits monetary financing of budget deficits
Almost everyone has been ignoring the convergence criteria in TFEU protocols 12 and 13 pretty much since the euro started, and many of the Eurozone countries are in violation of the Stability and Growth Pact, and have been for a number of years without any of the proscribed penalties.
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
And he probably wont get that since it is generally agreed to need a treaty change which France has said it will veto, and Poland (and I believe at least one of the Balkan countries) has said that any benefit restrictions on immigrants is an absolute red line.
Apart from that, no problem at all
So: this morning you quoted Philippe Legrain, about how the Eurozone was being too harsh in enforcing fiscal compliance.
And now you arguing the Eurozone is being too lax.
Either case, on its own, is logically consistent. But you cannot argue both.
Which is it: is the Eurozone being too harsh or too lax?
He's not accusing it of being too lax. He's accusing it of being illegal.
All I know is that as a BT fibre broadband customer I get access to BT Sport on my computer (without taking the BT TV package). This gave me premiership matches. Now they plan to show Champions league but want to bill me £5 extra for that. Not very happy.
All I know is that as a BT fibre broadband customer I get access to BT Sport on my computer (without taking the BT TV package). This gave me premiership matches. Now they plan to show Champions league but want to bill me £5 extra for that. Not very happy.
The Dartford Crossing - an economic powerhouse for Britain.
An economic powerhouse is one that stimulates economic activity and investment. The BBC does that. The UK has recently been named the number one country in the world in terms of soft power. The BBC has a lot to do with that view of our country.
This is all very hopeful. Peak Tory hubris really could see them make some very stupid mistakes, such that even the current moribund Labour party could benefit.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 35s35 seconds ago In keeping with the new age the @LibDems leadership result will be announced first on Twitter. Expected very soon
Comments
You're the fourth person on here who has switched from In to Out in the last week. I think you've swung further than I have. I would vote in if we could get a double QMV system and it enshrined in treaty change. I think Cameron probably won't get that, but he has outperformed my expectations before. Even people like TheScreamingEagles who were very strongly In are now considering things.
This is all very, very dangerous for the Conservatives. By the time of the referendum, it could be only the most loyalist Conservative supporters that will go with Cameron's recommendation. If the top brass all campaign for In - especially if they do so through misleading or deceptive arguments - they could lose vast amounts of trust with their base whatever the result. Right now a lot of people are put off UKIP by Farage, but I suspect he will resign after the refendum, in victory or defeat. It could be a Scottish Labour situation, and once people make the emotional break it is hard for them to go back.
I could also see the most effective Out Conservative winning the next leadership election, whether it is Hammond, Boris, Patel or Kwarteng.
Also saw "Sir Bobby Robson" twice, at King's Cross, and at Peterborough!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loco_91109_at_King's_Cross_01.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loco_91109_at_Peterborough.JPG
I rarely watch the BBC. The news is no better than ITN. It's GE output was awful. Sport coverage is nothing special.
The drama I find poor, or just running legacy brands. Dr Who dates from the 1960s. Poldark from the 1970s, and they can't be arsed to make more than 3 episodes of Sherlock at a time.
But, hey? David Attenborough is good. So I guess that's something.
Radio 4 - never listened to that, don't listen to BBC radio. You like it, great - why don't you pay for it. I listen to commercial radio when I'm in the car but still have nearly a quarter of my telly tax go on the radio. Its absurd. If it was up to me not a single penny of TV Poll Tax would go on radio services.
Dr Who - sold and shown commercially across the globe but can't be funded commercially in the UK? Come off it.
Besides which.. Any great man, or woman, tries many things and has a few spectacular failures. Atmospheric railways were another.
It's that energy, inspiration, leadership and creativeness that makes them great.
Why should it be the case for the, ah, state broadcaster?
But Tories aren't allowed to campaign until they've seen the 'renegotiation'...
Would be best coming from a non or ex politician anyway, and to most people Portillo is a well mannered smoothie who is on the telly. Plenty of my friends and family who've no interest in politics love him
I am forced on pain of imprisonment to pay for the conservative bias of the Telegraph, or the reality bias of the New Scientist? Do the authorities send me threatening letters even if I have no intention of ever reading any newspaper publication?
No, they do not. No political point of view has a right to be broadcast, or heard, or the general public forced to pay for it if they do not agree and wish to hear it. It's fundamentally anti-democratic.
But you point out neatly precisely why so many conservatives detest the BBC.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/621661607970635776
It would have worked if we had gone for a more continental system and had governments plan the network, instead of the competition that proved wonderful and wasteful in equal measure in the UK.
Which brings me onto a question for the PB pundits: what was the first serious legislative attempt at railway nationalisation in the UK, where the power were granted but never enacted?
Prosecuting licence fee dodgers makes up 10% of the number of cases prosecuted by the CPS paid for by the MoJ. Today a barrister produces a report which recommends carrying on prosecuting 180,000 people a year for failure to pay licence fees and which eventually leads to over 30 people (mainly women) going to jail. The scale of the number of lives blighted by this criminalisation and the cost that falls on the MoJ beggars belief. One day a tv channel will make a series of programmes about it....
Similarly, everyone is offended by the innard workings of the sausage factory at the moment and are saying they are done with sausages. But when it comes to the decision about eating a sausage, they might think differently.
Edit: as a hint, I think the same act introduced a piece of legislation that is till relevant to railway timetabling today, and is much beloved of enthusiasts who want to visit certain pieces of route. Such as yourself.
The Great Western railway remains one of the best engineered railways in the world.
It's relatively rare to have a weekend without a call, or at least an extended email conversation. My first call this morning, for instance, was at 5am.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11743457/Striking-ferry-workers-mutiny-on-ship-and-loot-bar-over-job-losses.html
"French ferry workers occupying two ships in protest against job losses are said to have run amok - drinking the bar dry and causing criminal damage.
The Rodin and Berlioz, which operated under the MyFerryLink brand, have been occupied since the beginning of the month at Calais.
Strikers are angry with the proposed lease of the vessels to Danish operator DFDS.
The boats were due to have been transferred to DFDS on July 2 after owners Eurotunnel decided to close its MyFerryLink business."
If the move to subscription meant they would have to do a bit less, then I would be ok with that so long as what they lost was the stuff I don't currently consume ;-)
This is my 1000th post, shame it's so mundane :-)
If you have an expensive facility (OR, MRI, whatever) it makes sense to maximise the use of the facility. If you don't use it 2 days of the week, close to 30% of the potential value from the capital investment is wasted.
Oh.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-would-lose-city-hall-contest-with-zac-goldsmith-poll-says-10393127.html
I agree with the advantages, but it is not just about land costs: narrower railways can wind more easily around hills, avoiding some large civil engineering works.
If broad gauge had become the standard, many lines would not have been economic to build, especially in upland areas.
Then again, although I admire Brunel, I am not a fan of the GWR and its coppertop adherents. It's Midland Crimson all the way for me! And we won the gauge war at Gloucester!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Regulation_Act_1844
The shift to subs is happening everywhere.
AIUI, the government were fed up with the early railways not doing their bit, so they put in place legislation to nationalise any railways that did not perform as expected (especially wrt finances). Rumour has it that the Railway King - George Hudson - intervened with Gladstone and had the legislation watered down - half the 48 clauses in the act were abandoned. Which was odd, as it was more or less targeted at him.
That part of the act was never used, and it did nothing to stop the railway manias and subsequent crashes.
It would be interesting to know hoe British railways - and indeed industry - would have developed if the act had not been watered down.
http://www.roberthumm.co.uk/
And Stamford itself is well worth spending a few hours in. A near-perfect Georgian coaching town.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-would-lose-city-hall-contest-with-zac-goldsmith-poll-says-10393127.html
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/621682744943357952
The Annual report from the pro-EU "British Influence" organization states:
A new weighting of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council came into force in
November 2014 as a result of changes agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon. QMV now requires
the support of 55 per cent of the members of the Council and 65 per cent of the population
of those Member States. This change means that the UK and other non-eurozone Member
States could potentially be outvoted on Single Market matters by the eurozone if the latter
votes as a bloc.
EDIT: Amusingly, in the light of recent events, the report then goes on to claim "However, in practice this is highly unlikely".
Lovely thought, thanks muchly, I already have the previous edition from IIRC 2008, which even then was £150.
we can call this the self-awareness coefficient.
In English, please?
The EU/eurozone remains despicably undemocratic.
It's undemocratic and that suits British interests perfectly.
Date: 16.07.2015 Last updated: 16.07.2015 at 12.57
Category: Corporate
The BBC has today released the following statement in response to the Government Green Paper on the future of the BBC.
The BBC is a creative and economic powerhouse for Britain. The starting point for any debate should be - how can a strong BBC benefit Britain even more at home and abroad? The BBC has embraced change in the past and will continue to do so in the future, and we will set out our own proposals in September.
We believe that this Green Paper would appear to herald a much diminished, less popular BBC. That would be bad for Britain and would not be the BBC that the public has known and loved for over 90 years.
It is important that we hear what the public want. It should be for the public to decide whether programmes like Strictly or Bake Off, or stations like Radio One or Two, should continue.
As the Director-General said on Tuesday, the BBC is not owned by its staff or by politicians, it is owned by the public. They are our shareholders. They pay the licence fee. Their voice should be heard the loudest.
BBC Press Office"
"economic powerhouse" ? What in that it relies on punters having to pony up with zero choice.
In that case the DVLA is an economic powerhouse for Britain.
The BBC has cut it's own throat - the garbage coverage of the Open and Wimbledon in the last 2 weeks is a pertinent example.
Never under-estimate the power of the placebo affect
TFEU 125 says that the responsibility for repaying public debt remains national and prevents risk premiums caused by unsound fiscal policies from spilling over to partner countries. How did that work out ?
TFEU 123 prohibits monetary financing of budget deficits
Almost everyone has been ignoring the convergence criteria in TFEU protocols 12 and 13 pretty much since the euro started, and many of the Eurozone countries are in violation of the Stability and Growth Pact, and have been for a number of years without any of the proscribed penalties. And he probably wont get that since it is generally agreed to need a treaty change which France has said it will veto, and Poland (and I believe at least one of the Balkan countries) has said that any benefit restrictions on immigrants is an absolute red line.
Apart from that, no problem at all
If Germany gets 55% of the votes on 65% of the population it can do exactly that, they just haven't got around to it yet, give them time.
Que?
So Speed Cameras are also an economic power house?
Now maybe Times readers are disproportionately anti-BBC because they love Uncle Rupert - but I doubt it to this extent.
The Beeb are really getting this wrong. As someone pointed out yesterday - they're also using very strange ways to mislead readers that more people wouldn't rather see adverts or sub rather than pay TVLF.
those who are about to die salute you. great stuff
But today, people are complaining that the EU majority is telling the EU minority what to spend money on.
It seems to me that Britain is happier when the EU is less democratic.
Edit: Thomas is man of the tour....the man is doing incredible levels of work.
Isn't that a supposedly favourite tune of Cameron?!
Doesn't add up.
"Because the Eurozone has a larger population than the UK, the UK should be rightfully outvoted so it has to pay for Eurozone mistakes."
Can I suggest you try it out with the broader public during the Brexit referendum?
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/40-labour-mps-defy-labour-leadership-with-welfare-bill-amendment/
- democratic elements (decisions can be taken by QMV), and
- undemocratic - where national vetoes are still allowed (though this latter area is getting smaller all the time)
The FTT was was approved by the European Parliament in December 2012, and by the Council of Ministers in January 2013. It has been delayed by disagreement over the scope of the tax and British legal challenges - which to date have been rejected by the ECJ(what a surprise!)
Whether democratic or undemocratic is irrelevant. It does not "suit British interests perfectly" in either form.
And now you arguing the Eurozone is being too lax.
Either case, on its own, is logically consistent. But you cannot argue both.
Which is it: is the Eurozone being too harsh or too lax?
Churning their base is so pointless, frankly their service is constantly going down/resetting every day so it's the push I need to stop accepting it.
This is all very hopeful. Peak Tory hubris really could see them make some very stupid mistakes, such that even the current moribund Labour party could benefit.
In keeping with the new age the @LibDems leadership result will be announced first on Twitter. Expected very soon