Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gains from both CON and LAB plus other good local results o

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gains from both CON and LAB plus other good local results on Tim Farron’s first night as LD leader

With only eight MPs at Westminster Farron would dearly love there to be a parliamentary by-election. But who knows when one of those is going to come up? So in the meantime the emphasis will be going back to its roots by seeking to build up the party on a local level.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • First ..... again!
  • "Lib Dems elect reasonable sounding centrist bloke"

    Well that's one way of describing Tim Farron I guess!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    I don't think Tim Farron will be telling Lib Dems to go home and prepare for government though. He doesn't really approve of that sort of thing.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    The Lib Dems are not likely to win a parliamentary by-election this term in any of the usual or likely places, because their obvious target seats are mostly full of relatively young, mostly Conservative MPs, who (for those two reasons) are not likely to die at all.

    Any by-election "sensations" (to use the usual media word) which they win are likely to happen in unexpected or random places, such as safe Labour seats where there might be a local issue which provides a spark. It would be like Eastbourne in 1990, where they won without needing to be on a high in the opinion polls nationally. Such a by-election win might depend on the collapse in support for UKIP, which I think is likely to happen anyway (regardless of what happens in the referendum).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Is Nick Clegg really going to hang around for 5 years now that a new leader is in place? Or will his old mucker Cameron find him a decent international job to do? It seems to me that a bye election in Sheffield Hallam is at least as likely as anywhere else and that the Lib Dems would have a real job holding on to it.

    Their best bet, like Eastbourne, is that the opposition is fairly evenly split, this time between Labour and the Conservatives and they just might slip through the middle, especially if Nick hangs on until mid term blues hit the Conservatives. But it won't be fun for the Lib Dems.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I have been wondering if I was the first person in the world to notice that Tim Farron got the same number of votes in the 2015 leadership election as Michael Portillo got in the general election in 1997. Probably not...
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    antifrank said:
    He got to power by convincing a lot of Tories in W&L that he shared their thinking. His subsequent transition to a Lefty surprised many people

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036
    DavidL said:

    Is Nick Clegg really going to hang around for 5 years now that a new leader is in place? Or will his old mucker Cameron find him a decent international job to do? It seems to me that a bye election in Sheffield Hallam is at least as likely as anywhere else and that the Lib Dems would have a real job holding on to it.

    Their best bet, like Eastbourne, is that the opposition is fairly evenly split, this time between Labour and the Conservatives and they just might slip through the middle, especially if Nick hangs on until mid term blues hit the Conservatives. But it won't be fun for the Lib Dems.

    Morning. Does Clegg have much of a choice? He knows that if he resigns he leaves a very tight by-election and could lose his party another seat for no reason. The best thing he could do for his party is to stay behind the scenes and find the successor for his seat in 2020 if he wants to leave at that point.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Caroline Ansell doesn't seem very likely to pop her clogs in the next 5yrs - how many would vote for a unknown LD down here isn't so clear cut.

    Stephen Lloyd had a big personal vote, I don't think we can assume that a newly minted contender would perform in the same fashion. Labour's last candidate is a nice chappy - he got about 5k votes. Eastbourne CLP has gone for Burnham and Watson IIRC
    DavidL said:

    Is Nick Clegg really going to hang around for 5 years now that a new leader is in place? Or will his old mucker Cameron find him a decent international job to do? It seems to me that a bye election in Sheffield Hallam is at least as likely as anywhere else and that the Lib Dems would have a real job holding on to it.

    Their best bet, like Eastbourne, is that the opposition is fairly evenly split, this time between Labour and the Conservatives and they just might slip through the middle, especially if Nick hangs on until mid term blues hit the Conservatives. But it won't be fun for the Lib Dems.

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    "Lib Dems elect reasonable sounding centrist bloke"

    Well that's one way of describing Tim Farron I guess!

    An alternative view was...

    "Which bit of the sanctimonious, God-bothering, treacherous little ****is there not to like?”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11741946/24-things-you-didnt-know-about-Tim-Farron.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036
    Ha ha, looks like the Guardian fell hook, line and sinker for the Telegraph's tongue-in-cheek 'Vote Corbyn' article. They do need to get themselves a sense of humour and proportion sometimes.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11744789/My-failed-attempt-to-destroy-Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-and-British-democracy.html
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    The Lib Dems will pay a price for the disaster of 2015 for a long time. As an example, if there had been a reasonable (say 30) Lib Dem party in the Commons and Labour elects the dream team of Corbyn and Watson some defections of despairing Labour MPs might well have been on the cards.

    But who wants to become pieces of 8? You'd have to be as mad as Carswell to want to do that and he is pretty special.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Off-topic:

    We haven't heard much about the squirrel recently. It appears he's taken the election result rather hard:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Not a good start, more meaningless guff:

    "Speaking to an audience of around 500 party members after his victory, Farron described the Lib Dem defeat at the general election as “overwhelming, desperate, heartbreaking.” He said the party’s election campaign had focused too much on what the party wasn’t instead of what it was.

    “So let me be crystal clear what the Liberal Democrats are for: we are the party that sees the best in people not the worst,” said Farron to deafening applause."

    What mainstream UK party is for seeing the worst in people, not the best?
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    Off-topic:

    We haven't heard much about the squirrel recently. It appears he's taken the election result rather hard:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502

    There's another good squirrel story here...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYdy1r_YmxU
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    "Speaking to an audience of around 500 party members after his victory, Farron described the Lib Dem defeat at the general election as “overwhelming, desperate, heartbreaking.” He said the party’s election campaign had focused too much on what the party wasn’t instead of what it was.

    “So let me be crystal clear what the Liberal Democrats are for: we are the party that sees the best in people not the worst,” said Farron to deafening applause."

    What mainstream UK party is for seeing the worst in people, not the best?

    Tories, obviously. Silly question.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I think its a case of some voters feeling sorry for the LD's.. They've got rid of the prospect of a Labour SNP stitch up which was a real cause for concern. UKIP are on the slide and the Tories are on holiday or too busy watching the cricket and having barbies to vote!!.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    I know this had some considerable discussion on a thread yesterday but what is made of this? It appears that we don't lose any money if Greece fails to pay up and neither do any non Euro zone country. Only thing I can't understand is why we ever were in the frame for the Euro anyway given we were not involved or at any of the negotiations??

    Where's the catch though. It's the EU there is always a catch.....

    Mr Osborne said: ‘These have been tough talks, but the agreement means an impregnable ring-fence around British taxpayers’ money, which will not be at risk in any way in this emergency financing for Greece.
    ‘Importantly, we have also managed to secure the same protections for all other member states who are not members of the single currency.
    ‘The European Commission has agreed these changes will be legally binding.’


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164607/UK-cash-ring-fenced-Greek-bailout-deal.html#ixzz3g7xucXnh
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    PClipp said:

    "Speaking to an audience of around 500 party members after his victory, Farron described the Lib Dem defeat at the general election as “overwhelming, desperate, heartbreaking.” He said the party’s election campaign had focused too much on what the party wasn’t instead of what it was.

    “So let me be crystal clear what the Liberal Democrats are for: we are the party that sees the best in people not the worst,” said Farron to deafening applause."

    What mainstream UK party is for seeing the worst in people, not the best?

    Tories, obviously. Silly question.
    Conservatives would strongly disagree - they are about trusting people.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @brokenbottleboy: Pretend you're the new Lib Dem leader by getting into a Mini with three friends that don't even like you that much.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    Off-topic:

    We haven't heard much about the squirrel recently. It appears he's taken the election result rather hard:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502

    Is that 'posed by a model' squirrel one with a thriving modelling career?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    Yes, you're right. Osborne obviously wanted to slow the rate at which the cuts were going to be made in March but the Lib Dems restrained him. Fixed it now though.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2015
    I liked the caption
    The squirrel managed to turn beer taps on and open bags of crisps (picture posed by model)
    I loved this picture http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203960/Greedy-possum-overwhelmed-pastries-sneaking-bakery.html

    Off-topic:

    We haven't heard much about the squirrel recently. It appears he's taken the election result rather hard:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.

    Let's see how electorally popular it is when millions of families find they have less coming in than they did previously. At that stage we may discover that IHT cuts and ring-fencing all spending on the Tory client state are not as joyously received.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    edited July 2015
    DavidL said:

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    Yes, you're right. Osborne obviously wanted to slow the rate at which the cuts were going to be made in March but the Lib Dems restrained him. Fixed it now though.

    Indeed. It does seem as if the return to surplus is entirely a political calculation.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Moses, must agree. I doubt the money will ever return. And we should never have been on the hook for any in the first place.

    Mr. Royale, quite. Farron's not alone, but the horrifyingly bland, tedious nature of many political statements make them worthless.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Meanwhile, over at Lord's we can expect England to begin their innings at around 5.00 pm this evening chasing 400 or so to avoid the follow on. It will be a very big test for our young Lions. Do they have the capacity and the bottle to bat out a draw? If they do they will take a very big step towards regaining the Ashes.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    Good luck to the LDs. Farron gives them a chance to move on from the coalition disaster.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Moses_ said:

    I know this had some considerable discussion on a thread yesterday but what is made of this? It appears that we don't lose any money if Greece fails to pay up and neither do any non Euro zone country. Only thing I can't understand is why we ever were in the frame for the Euro anyway given we were not involved or at any of the negotiations??

    Where's the catch though. It's the EU there is always a catch.....

    Mr Osborne said: ‘These have been tough talks, but the agreement means an impregnable ring-fence around British taxpayers’ money, which will not be at risk in any way in this emergency financing for Greece.
    ‘Importantly, we have also managed to secure the same protections for all other member states who are not members of the single currency.
    ‘The European Commission has agreed these changes will be legally binding.’


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164607/UK-cash-ring-fenced-Greek-bailout-deal.html#ixzz3g7xucXnh

    Well quite. The more pertinent question to my mind is if the ECB has this 4+ bn euros floating around that they have earmarked to underwrite our share of the loan if Greece default on repaying the loan, why didn't they just lend that money to Greece and leave us out of it. The only plausible answer is to do with sharing risk, and yet, supposedly there is no risk. It stinks of stitch up to me.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Harman we will support the Tories welfare chanes

    The acrid smell of burning rubber in combination with the scream of tortured wheels as after completing a number of political doughnuts the labour party for the grand finale complete a humongous U turn

    Daily Telegraph

    Labour will no longer support George Osborne’s cuts to benefits, Harriet Harman has said, after a rebellion from scores of MPs and some of the candidates for the Labour leadership.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.
    I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy ;)
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That sounded like Paddy to my ears - but who knows!
    Gadfly said:

    "Lib Dems elect reasonable sounding centrist bloke"

    Well that's one way of describing Tim Farron I guess!

    An alternative view was...

    "Which bit of the sanctimonious, God-bothering, treacherous little ****is there not to like?”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11741946/24-things-you-didnt-know-about-Tim-Farron.html
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Indigo said:

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.
    I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy ;)
    My 20-year d nephew is the same. He works at Bentley. I'm v.proud of him.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    My instinct is that the Lib Dems will recover far more successfully in England than Labour will.

    They will just be more cautious about their promises in future.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Jonathan said:

    Good luck to the LDs. Farron gives them a chance to move on from the coalition disaster.

    You are making a habit of seeing things incorrectly. The Coalition did a brilliant job in very difficult circumstances, you would rather airbrush away the mess Brown made of the UK.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Jonathan said:

    Good luck to the LDs. Farron gives them a chance to move on from the coalition disaster.

    You are making a habit of seeing things incorrectly. The Coalition did a brilliant job in very difficult circumstances, you would rather airbrush away the mess Brown made of the UK.
    That's a matter of debate. What is not a matter of debate is that the coalition was a disaster for the lib dems.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.

    Let's see how electorally popular it is when millions of families find they have less coming in than they did previously. At that stage we may discover that IHT cuts and ring-fencing all spending on the Tory client state are not as joyously received.
    Wasnt this the entire 2010-2015 labour election strategy? Wait until the tory cuts begin to bite and we will be back in on a wave of popular will. For some the whole scale of child tax credits was wrong and unsustainable, and they knew it. But would you knock back £6k of cash for popping out two kids?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Nick Clegg really going to hang around for 5 years now that a new leader is in place? Or will his old mucker Cameron find him a decent international job to do? It seems to me that a bye election in Sheffield Hallam is at least as likely as anywhere else and that the Lib Dems would have a real job holding on to it.

    Their best bet, like Eastbourne, is that the opposition is fairly evenly split, this time between Labour and the Conservatives and they just might slip through the middle, especially if Nick hangs on until mid term blues hit the Conservatives. But it won't be fun for the Lib Dems.

    Morning. Does Clegg have much of a choice? He knows that if he resigns he leaves a very tight by-election and could lose his party another seat for no reason. The best thing he could do for his party is to stay behind the scenes and find the successor for his seat in 2020 if he wants to leave at that point.
    Indeed. Similar reason, or an additional reason, to why Carmichael will stick around. Could be risks for both places in five years if they stick around, but going now would risk giving those seats away for sure.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    The interview with the LD lady (cannot recall her name) on Newnight yesterday became very idealistic. She continuously mentioned Liberal values, but was very careful not to define them - so it was not apparent how realistic those values are for the current and future times. Also she dodged the questions about Farron taking the LDs to the left and a possible liaison with Labour and so leaving a hole for the Cons to fill even more.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    notme said:

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.

    Let's see how electorally popular it is when millions of families find they have less coming in than they did previously. At that stage we may discover that IHT cuts and ring-fencing all spending on the Tory client state are not as joyously received.
    Wasnt this the entire 2010-2015 labour election strategy? Wait until the tory cuts begin to bite and we will be back in on a wave of popular will. For some the whole scale of child tax credits was wrong and unsustainable, and they knew it. But would you knock back £6k of cash for popping out two kids?

    I am not particularly interested in Labour right now. My argument is with the contention that tax cuts and protected welfare payments for the Tory client state are going to be as popular when the other side of the bargain becomes apparent.

  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'winning here'...all a bit desperate
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    Quite agree with you, but the interview, also on Newsnight, with the man from the BBC - he gave the impression that the BBC should not be questioned in any way and totally ignored currents stats on the BBC.

    The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries, benefits and manning (and womaning). To me the more sports they lose the less value they are giving and I will not pay for them on SKY. Perhaps he needs to lobby more the DCMS and cut the numbers of staff that attend prestigious events.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    Financier said:

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries..
    Would be nice if the BBC started paying market rates.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    Indigo said:

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.
    I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy ;)
    My 20-year d nephew is the same. He works at Bentley. I'm v.proud of him.
    40% of 18-34 year olds voted either Conservative or UKIP, which is an encouraging number.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    Mr James Purnell ex-MP ? Formerly Special Adviser on the Knowledge Economy, including Internet and broadcasting policy to Tony Blair ? Surely some mistake.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    Jonathan said:

    Financier said:

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries..
    Would be nice if the BBC started paying market rates.
    Problem is the BBC 'is' the market. It effects everything around it, like the Sun with it's gravitational pull.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    F1: rumour Bottas has signed for Ferrari:
    https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/bottas-ferrari-and-falling-dominoes/

    A shame if so, I would've preferred Hulkenberg to get the seat. Upside is that Hulkenberg might move to take Bottas' place at Williams.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Jonathan said:

    Financier said:

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries..
    Would be nice if the BBC started paying market rates.
    Problem is the BBC 'is' the market. It effects everything around it, like the Sun with it's gravitational pull.
    That's a naive view. Many, if not most, BBC employees work in fields where the BBC certainly does not dominate the market. For example the BBC does not set the market rate for Ruby developers.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Llay is rather more surprising.

    Perhaps the effects of Leighton Andrew's intended merging of the Welsh Councils?

    This has sparked an angry backlash from some Labour councillors, especially in the North East. Wrexham is due to be merged with Flintshire. (Cynics might say fewer councils, less opportunities for the the bruvvers).

    I think this reorganisation is one of the things that might affect Labour’s performance in next years Assembly elections, as it hits the foot-soldiers.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
    Says one man talking to another man on the internet.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036
    edited July 2015
    BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
    Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    Financier said:

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    Quite agree with you, but the interview, also on Newsnight, with the man from the BBC - he gave the impression that the BBC should not be questioned in any way and totally ignored currents stats on the BBC.

    The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries, benefits and manning (and womaning). To me the more sports they lose the less value they are giving and I will not pay for them on SKY. Perhaps he needs to lobby more the DCMS and cut the numbers of staff that attend prestigious events.
    I believe the man from the BBC was the very same James Purnell.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Indigo said:

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    Mr James Purnell ex-MP ? Formerly Special Adviser on the Knowledge Economy, including Internet and broadcasting policy to Tony Blair ? Surely some mistake.
    I was being polite by not naming the hypocrite gentleman.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2015
    Mr Norton who's paid many millions by the BBC. I'm shocked.
    Sandpit said:

    BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
    Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    notme said:

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.

    Let's see how electorally popular it is when millions of families find they have less coming in than they did previously. At that stage we may discover that IHT cuts and ring-fencing all spending on the Tory client state are not as joyously received.
    Wasnt this the entire 2010-2015 labour election strategy? Wait until the tory cuts begin to bite and we will be back in on a wave of popular will. For some the whole scale of child tax credits was wrong and unsustainable, and they knew it. But would you knock back £6k of cash for popping out two kids?
    Hmm. We'll see. I don't think everyone affected is going to gamely 'take one for the team' and swallow a 3K or whatever tax credit cut without becoming a potential switch voter.

    As I have said before on PB, I suspect millions of people receiving tax credits were not aware that this actually counted as part of the welfare system. Not least because HMRC runs it. When they voted to bash benefits they didn't mean there own. We will see in a few months.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
    If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.

    If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
    Says one man talking to another man on the internet.
    We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Plato said:

    Mr Norton who's paid many millions by the BBC. I'm shocked.

    Sandpit said:

    BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
    Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

    Careful -- I was reprimanded yesterday for pointing out that most of the BBC's critics had a vested interest as well -- owning or working for rival broadcasters.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Sandpit said:

    BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
    Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

    Mr Purnell was questioned very strongly about that letter - he wriggled and wriggled about the BBC's authorship but just could not find the word NO in his vocabulary - perhaps it just does not exist or he needs re-education on truthfulness.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
    If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.

    If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.

    Does anyone at the BBC earn as much as the Governor of the Bank of England?

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
    If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.

    If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
    Your cake is a non-sequitur but wherever it finds the cash, the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its executives, lighting engineers and television cameras. That's how markets work.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.
    I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy ;)
    My 20-year d nephew is the same. He works at Bentley. I'm v.proud of him.
    40% of 18-34 year olds voted either Conservative or UKIP, which is an encouraging number.
    They are a very sensible generation. He drinks far less than my generation do, for instance.

    What he isn't is a cossetted middle-class graduate, from an urbane Russell Group university, that follows a carefully opinion filtered group of friends on Twitter, and a Guardian reader.

    He worked hard for some good a-levels, became an agency worker on the factory line and has now secured an apprenticeship in mechanical vehicle manufacture and design.

    He's a Conservative supporter.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Plato said:

    Mr Norton who's paid many millions by the BBC. I'm shocked.

    Sandpit said:

    BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
    Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

    Careful -- I was reprimanded yesterday for pointing out that most of the BBC's critics had a vested interest as well -- owning or working for rival broadcasters.

    What BBC haters really struggle with is that Norton is probably more representative of the general view than they are.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Moses_ said:

    Financier said:

    The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

    Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

    I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

    That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

    Only saying...
    All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
    If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.

    If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
    Your cake is a non-sequitur but wherever it finds the cash, the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its executives, lighting engineers and television cameras. That's how markets work.
    No that's not how markets work.

    If the BBC has a budget (for instance a cap on wages at the rate of the PM) then it needs to offer jobs and whichever rate it can afford and hire from amongst those who apply for the job at that rate. If you pay too much in the market then you risk getting undercut and going bust because of competition from your competitors and consumer choice. That is how markets work. Giving yourself a blank cheque on force of imprisonment and then writing high numbers "because of the market" is not how markets work.

    Do you seriously think that if the job was offered at £125k that James Purnell ex-MP would have turned his nose up and not applied for the job?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. Observer, it's the BBC that wants to increase the mandatory licence fee.

    Mr. Royale, Canadian case, but a man's on trial for disagreeing with a feminist on Twitter. She claims he made her feel endangered. Under Canadian law, it seems, the charge will be judged by his actions (deemed not to be threatening) but also her subjective feelings.

    It's a horrendous law. I just hope we don't get that level of bullshit over here.

    Still, it's not like a woman can tweet about killing all white men and keep her job as a diversity officer whilst a respected scientist can have comments taken out of context and his resignation forced upon him, right?

    I am heartened that your son's generation seems to be shifting away from the 'gosh, don't be offensive' limpwristedness of older generations.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036

    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

    Best of luck to them.

    The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

    I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

    However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

    Let's see what Farron adds to that.
    I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy ;)
    My 20-year d nephew is the same. He works at Bentley. I'm v.proud of him.
    40% of 18-34 year olds voted either Conservative or UKIP, which is an encouraging number.
    They are a very sensible generation. He drinks far less than my generation do, for instance.

    What he isn't is a cossetted middle-class graduate, from an urbane Russell Group university, that follows a carefully opinion filtered group of friends on Twitter, and a Guardian reader.

    He worked hard for some good a-levels, became an agency worker on the factory line and has now secured an apprenticeship in mechanical vehicle manufacture and design.

    He's a Conservative supporter.
    Sounds like a very sensible young chap. You're right to be very proud of him.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

    Payback time.
  • BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
    Says one man talking to another man on the internet.
    We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.
    It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

    Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.
    A cynic might wonder if a deal had been struck with the BBC to take on the over 75 free TV Licences in exchange for dropping other proposals like decriminalisation.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
    Says one man talking to another man on the internet.
    We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.
    It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

    Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.
    Being a publisher is irrelevant. You are shouting in an empty room.

    The scarce resource is attention. To influence that you need serious resources. And again that is controlled by very few.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

    Payback time.

    And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.

    But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
    Says one man talking to another man on the internet.
    We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.
    It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

    Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.
    TV is a great example of diversification. We've gone from 4 channels when I was a kid (3 for many others here I suspect) to hundreds of channels that are frequently ignored in favour of downloading shows off the internet.

    I'd estimate 95% of shows I watch now from broadcast media are broadcast on non-BBC channels - but more often shows watched are not even being broadcast but downloaded.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.
    A cynic might wonder if a deal had been struck with the BBC to take on the over 75 free TV Licences in exchange for dropping other proposals like decriminalisation.
    There was almost certainly a discussion at the very highest levels. Much to the annoyance of those excluded.

    On the face of it, with no other changes the BBC have had a 16% top line budget cut, and the government have had an 800m spending cut that affects no-one directly. Looks from here like a big win/win.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    Yes, but are they full of stuff that people really want to watch? Surely the BBC should focus on making very good programmes that also can be sold/licensed overseas to recoup some of the cost (e.g Top Gear). This should be in parallel with its public interest - information programmes and globally-received news and information programmes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

    Payback time.

    And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.

    But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.

    Privatise it, let them implement advertising. Less cost. As for choice, the BBC are just a few out of hundreds of channels not the be all and end all. I'm sure a Bargain Hunt equivalent can be funded without sending people to prison for a poll tax.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.

    Your concern at the plight of the 30 or more families a year in the UK blighted by the consequences of refusing to pay the TV licence does you great credit. I wonder what your views are on the plight of the thousands of families each year whose lives are blighted by government decisions you support.

  • BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.
    A cynic might wonder if a deal had been struck with the BBC to take on the over 75 free TV Licences in exchange for dropping other proposals like decriminalisation.
    That does look like what Osborne did. It has hamstrung the rest of Govt.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
    Says one man talking to another man on the internet.
    We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.
    It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

    Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.
    Being a publisher is irrelevant. You are shouting in an empty room.

    The scarce resource is attention. To influence that you need serious resources. And again that is controlled by very few.
    Nonsense. They say that the weight of all the ants in the world far outweighs the weight of all the humans. Just so with micro-publishing.

    And there are new more mainstream publishers coming through all the time from all directions. The internet was convulsed this month by a crisis at Reddit. Reddit was founded in 2005 by two graduates. VICE News was created in 2013. I'm not particularly au courant so no doubt I'm not up to speed with the latest coming things. And I haven't mentioned Facebook or Twitter or Pinterest or Instagram.

    This is the world in which the BBC now exists, and it's only heading in one direction.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.
    A cynic might wonder if a deal had been struck with the BBC to take on the over 75 free TV Licences in exchange for dropping other proposals like decriminalisation.
    There is no justification whatsoever for a needing a 'licence' to watch television programmes, in a digital age. Still less that to not have one should be made a criminal offence.

    Eventually, it will go the way of radio licences. It's only a question of time.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    The BBC needs protecting from itself. It shoots itself in the foot with monotonous regularity.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    Jonathan said:

    antifrank said:

    The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

    Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

    If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
    Says one man talking to another man on the internet.
    We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.
    It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

    Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.
    Being a publisher is irrelevant. You are shouting in an empty room.

    The scarce resource is attention. To influence that you need serious resources. And again that is controlled by very few.
    No its not, its controlled by many more than it ever has been.
  • BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

    Payback time.

    And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.

    But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.

    When in the non News programmes there are more attacks and smears etc against the Conservatives, then the BBC is not impartial. But, this "assault" as you describe it against the BBC is probably doomed before it starts by the failure to decriminalise the licence fee.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    He's a very silly man in that case. Annie Nightingale and Michael Palin confirmed yesterday that they were rung up by either Mr Cohen or his mate the Controller of BBC Something and asked to sign it.

    Mr Cohen even created a #hashtag and sent out loads of ThankYou!! tweets from his own account. Stupid or what for a supposedly *independent* show of love for the BBC.
    Financier said:

    Sandpit said:

    BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
    Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

    Mr Purnell was questioned very strongly about that letter - he wriggled and wriggled about the BBC's authorship but just could not find the word NO in his vocabulary - perhaps it just does not exist or he needs re-education on truthfulness.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

    The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

    Payback time.

    And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.

    But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.

    Privatise it, let them implement advertising. Less cost. As for choice, the BBC are just a few out of hundreds of channels not the be all and end all. I'm sure a Bargain Hunt equivalent can be funded without sending people to prison for a poll tax.

    Big ticket advertising is a finite resource. With its brand and audience figures the BBC would take a great chunk of it. Thus, there would less for everyone else. I'd go for a subscription model. At, say, £200 a year it would be significantly cheaper than most Sky packages and my guess is that while some would drop out most would stay in, meaning more income. That would also enable the BBC to go out into the markets and raise capital - something that it would do with ease. Again, though, it may not work entirely in the favour of the BBC's competitors.

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Are people really proud of relatives because they are, in effect Tories? In any case, I'm afraid to tell them it's is indeed doubtful that 'SJW types' are fading, and becoming Tories. Most young people won't gravitate towards a government that doesn't really do much for, or care about young people.

    I haven't heard of 'safe spaces' but is triggering really an unreasonable idea? I'm on tumblr, and I've always seen in it used in the context of rape and other abuse victims, in regard to being sensitive towards these issues.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Careful with the spelling...

    @mattholehouse: Hermany Van Rompuy is to enter the ranks of aristocracy and be made a Count by King Filip, Belgian media reports
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Plato, what concerned me even more was his arrogance, his unwillingness to listen, his always shouting across the other debaters and his absolute refusal to listen or even concede that there is any other valid viewpoint than his.
    Plato said:

    He's a very silly man in that case. Annie Nightingale and Michael Palin confirmed yesterday that they were rung up by either Mr Cohen or his mate the Controller of BBC Something and asked to sign it.

    Mr Cohen even created a #hashtag and sent out loads of ThankYou!! tweets from his own account. Stupid or what for a supposedly *independent* show of love for the BBC.

    Financier said:

    Sandpit said:

    BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
    Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

    Mr Purnell was questioned very strongly about that letter - he wriggled and wriggled about the BBC's authorship but just could not find the word NO in his vocabulary - perhaps it just does not exist or he needs re-education on truthfulness.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That is possibly the stupidest comment I've seen from you.

    That's like arguing that your shopping basket is full, and therefore there's no room for new products.

    Of course EVERY OTHER broadcaster has full schedules if they want them - and funnily enough they manage to make money and original stuff too.

    I do wonder sometimes if those who love the BBC have a complete blindspot about how every other broadcaster copes without a telly tax.

    BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

Sign In or Register to comment.