politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership election results WILL be broken down by

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership election results WILL be broken down by how the different categories have voted

The tweet above represents a big change of mind by Labour on how it will announce the results on September 12th. Initially the plan had not been to give separate figures for the three different types of voter. Now these will be provided.

Read the full story here

RobD

First!

I see Mr Corbyn is now Leader Corbyn. Not too far from Dear Leader Corbyn (or Comrade Corbyn for that matter)

RobD

Oh, are they going to release preferences? Or just the final tally from each college?

RobD

also *blows raspberry at peter*

JohnLoony

RobD said:

Oh, are they going to release preferences? Or just the final tally from each college?

There aren't any "colleges"; there are merely three types of voters, whose votes will be declared separately as well as added together.

The result might be something like this (this is an illustration, not a prediction):

FIRST ROUND
Corbyn: members 80,000 + affiliated 50,000 + registered 50,000 = total 180,000
Burnham: members 50,000 + affiliated 20,000 + registered 15,000 = total 85,000
Cooper: members 45,000 + affiliated 10,000 + registered 25,000 = total 80,000
Kendall: members 15,000 + affiliated 10,000 + registered 10,000 = total 35,000
TOTAL: members 190,000 + affiliated 90,000 + registered 100,000 = total 380,000
(quota needed for election = 380,000 / 2 = 190,000)

SECOND ROUND
Corbyn: members 80,000 + affiliated 50,000 + registered 50,000 = total 180,000
Burnham: members 55,000 + affiliated 25,000 + registered 15,000 = total 95,000
Cooper: members 55,000 + affiliated 15,000 + registered 30,000 = total 100,000
TOTAL: members 190,000 + affiliated 90,000 + registered 100,000 = total 375,000
(quota needed for election = 375,000 / 2 = 187,500)

THIRD ROUND
Corbyn: members 95,000 + affiliated 60,000 + registered 55,000 = total 210,000
Cooper: members 80,000 + affiliated 25,000 + registered 35,000 = total 140,000
TOTAL: members 190,000 + affiliated 90,000 + registered 100,000 = total 350,000
(quota needed for election = 350,000 / 2 = 175,000)

-------

If "are they going to release preferences?" means "are they going to publish the full list of preferences on each ballot paper?", then the answer is no.

RobD

JohnLoony said:

RobD said:

Oh, are they going to release preferences? Or just the final tally from each college?

There aren't any "colleges"; there are merely three types of voters, whose votes will be declared separately as well as added together.

The result might be something like this (this is an illustration, not a prediction):

FIRST ROUND
Corbyn: members 80,000 + affiliated 50,000 + registered 50,000 = total 180,000
Burnham: members 50,000 + affiliated 20,000 + registered 15,000 = total 85,000
Cooper: members 45,000 + affiliated 10,000 + registered 25,000 = total 80,000
Kendall: members 15,000 + affiliated 10,000 + registered 10,000 = total 35,000
TOTAL: members 190,000 + affiliated 90,000 + registered 100,000 = total 380,000
(quota needed for election = 380,000 / 2 = 190,000)

SECOND ROUND
Corbyn: members 80,000 + affiliated 50,000 + registered 50,000 = total 180,000
Burnham: members 55,000 + affiliated 25,000 + registered 15,000 = total 95,000
Cooper: members 55,000 + affiliated 15,000 + registered 30,000 = total 100,000
TOTAL: members 190,000 + affiliated 90,000 + registered 100,000 = total 375,000
(quota needed for election = 375,000 / 2 = 187,500)

THIRD ROUND
Corbyn: members 95,000 + affiliated 60,000 + registered 55,000 = total 210,000
Cooper: members 80,000 + affiliated 25,000 + registered 35,000 = total 140,000
TOTAL: members 190,000 + affiliated 90,000 + registered 100,000 = total 350,000
(quota needed for election = 350,000 / 2 = 175,000)

-------

If "are they going to release preferences?" means "are they going to publish the full list of preferences on each ballot paper?", then the answer is no.

Oh, I meant are they going to release the number before each round of elimination. I don't think they'll release individual rankings.

MikeL

Of course it could be that the order of elimination for any one group of voters would be different to the actual order of elimination for the total electorate.

eg Full members only would have led to Corbyn v Burnham in the final round whereas the total electorate actually gives Corbyn v Cooper.

If the above happens it will be impossible to tell who would have won if the election had been full members only - because we would never see how Cooper's vote would have been redistributed.

So the whole thing could still end in total farce - with nobody knowing who would have won if it had been full members only.

chestnut

Revealing the various divisions within the vote will, most likely, undermine the winner. That's a strange way to operate but wholly in keeping with this farce.

JohnLoony

MikeL said:

Of course it could be that the order of elimination for any one group of voters would be different to the actual order of elimination for the total electorate.

eg Full members only would have led to Corbyn v Burnham in the final round whereas the total electorate actually gives Corbyn v Cooper.

If the above happens it will be impossible to tell who would have won if the election had been full members only - because we would never see how Cooper's vote would have been redistributed.

So the whole thing could still end in total farce - with nobody knowing who would have won if it had been full members only.

The same phenomenon was inherent in the previous electoral college system, only worse.

Oliver_PB

Question for the day: What was the unemployment benefit regime like under Thatcher (i.e. before the JobSeekers Act of 1995)?

JackW

"The LAB leadership election results WILL be broken down by how the different categories have voted."

The Jezzbollah Faithful - 524,217 - Elected Dear Leader.

The Mini-Cooper Run Around - 62,981 - Failed MOT.

Burnham All-At-Sea - 54,016 - Washed Up Wreck

Liz Kendall Mint Cake - 23,904 - Sweet F*ck All

blackburn63

They may as well make the winner dress as Mr Blobby in parliament now for all it matters, labour have become a laughing stock entirely of their own making. Good.

ToryJim

chestnut said:

Revealing the various divisions within the vote will, most likely, undermine the winner. That's a strange way to operate but wholly in keeping with this farce.

Well a large part of the Parliamentary party believes it will end up with a leader they actively want to undermine.

chestnut

Oliver_PB said:

Question for the day: What was the unemployment benefit regime like under Thatcher (i.e. before the JobSeekers Act of 1995)?

Largely the same as it is now.

Jobseeker's Allowance is an amalgam of what had previously been two separate benefits for the unemployed - Unemployment Benefit and Income Support (prior to that Supplementary Benefit). The separate benefits were divided along the lines of Contributory Benefits and Means Tested and were operated by two separate government agencies - the Employment Service (Jobcentres) and the Benefits Agency.

Things like sanctions have been around for decades and compulsory training schemes have existed in one guise or another for decades as well.

Contributory benefit used to last one year instead of six months.

The basic age for entitlement was 16 until 1988 when it became 18. There were hardship exceptions for certain 16-17 year olds, but the general feeling was that youngsters should stay in training, education or employment, rather than dole. That age, just like school leaving, has crept upwards over the decades.

The system was still heavily, paper based in the 1980s and riddled with fraud.

JSA, and it's predecessor on the means test, Supplementary Benefit, incorporated payments for the family as well as the claimant and partner. Brown added division to this system through the invention of tax credits.

Oliver_PB

chestnut said:

...

Interesting, thanks for the in-depth reply.

I am under the perception that Supplementary Benefit (and later Income Support) had very little in the way of obligations and sanctions, which have steadily got increasingly tougher since the 90s. Is that accurate?

DavidL

Nah, it just can't get any worse for Labour. Good try though.

Casino_Royale

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

flightpath01

All members are equal, only some are more equal than others

OldKingCole

Oliver_PB said:

chestnut said:

...

Interesting, thanks for the in-depth reply.

I am under the perception that Supplementary Benefit (and later Income Support) had very little in the way of obligations and sanctions, which have steadily got increasingly tougher since the 90s. Is that accurate?

My perception is the same. “Sanctions” weren’t, as I recall, a concern for CAB staff advising claimants until relatively recently.

foxinsoxuk

JackW said:

"The LAB leadership election results WILL be broken down by how the different categories have voted."

The Jezzbollah Faithful - 524,217 - Elected Dear Leader.

The Mini-Cooper Run Around - 62,981 - Failed MOT.

Burnham All-At-Sea - 54,016 - Washed Up Wreck

Liz Kendall Mint Cake - 23,904 - Sweet F*ck All

Is this a sign that your ARSE is now red?

Publishing the figures by group still doesn't tell us when people joined.

DavidL

Oliver_PB said:

chestnut said:

...

Interesting, thanks for the in-depth reply.

I am under the perception that Supplementary Benefit (and later Income Support) had very little in the way of obligations and sanctions, which have steadily got increasingly tougher since the 90s. Is that accurate?

You still had to be looking for work but this was fairly notional, partly because there was much higher unemployment. The focus of the fraud teams was very much on those already working and claiming benefits, a problem largely solved by giving those in work even more benefits than those who are not!

From my very brief experience in the 80s the main problem was that the bureaucracy was so slow that I found work before my claim was processed. Some things don't change.

Casino_Royale

On topic, don't think so. If Corbyn wins, which he will, he'll win comfortably in all areas. However, he might win by a slightly lower margin overall than I previously thought - I've noticed some Labour members who have talked big on Corbyn have actually voted differently - and probably not outright on the first round.

Incidentally, I can't believe there's still two weeks to go - this feels like the longest leadership election ever.

Meanwhile, you can *still* back him at 1.35 on Betfair.

JohnLilburne

Oliver_PB said:

chestnut said:

...

Interesting, thanks for the in-depth reply.

I am under the perception that Supplementary Benefit (and later Income Support) had very little in the way of obligations and sanctions, which have steadily got increasingly tougher since the 90s. Is that accurate?

It depends who you are. There is little obligation on current IS claimants to find work as the only people who can still claim it (such as lone parents of children under 5 and full time carers) are not expected to do so. Until recently jobseekers were only expected to do three things a week to find work; over the last few years this has gone up to daily for most people, and under Universal Credit it is expected to be a full time activity.

david_herdson

On topic, the extent to which the election result breakdown could undermine Corbyn would depend on the nature of the result. From what evidence we have, he's likely to have a substantial first-round lead in all three sections. It's only if the contest goes to a third round that there could be the data that would prove troublesome. If he wins on the first (or, improbably, the second), round then he won't have any difficulty.

The same is of course also true for the other candidates if Cobyn doesn't win. If Burnham or Cooper somehow pull it off, they can be attacked for only being the first choice of about a quarter of Labour's membership.

But the critical electoral college section here is the one that doesn't exist: the MPs. It's they who would be 80%+ against Corbyn and it's they who have most opportunity in the future to bring him down.

david_herdson

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, don't think so. If Corbyn wins, which he will, he'll win comfortably in all areas. However, he might win by a slightly lower margin overall than I previously thought - I've noticed some Labour members who have talked big on Corbyn have actually voted differently - and probably not outright on the first round.

Incidentally, I can't believe there's still two weeks to go - this feels like the longest leadership election ever.

Meanwhile, you can *still* back him at 1.35 on Betfair.

1.35 is nuts. However, if it is a close result then chances are that Corbyn will have lost the membership section (by definition, if it's close overall then there's a strong probability that the winner will have lost at least one section and a reasonable chance that - as in 2010 - they've lost two of them).

Jonathan

Good to see Ianuuci deal with Tory folly over the bbc.


https://twitter.com/iainmski/status/636783090564792320?s=09

TCPoliticalBetting

david_herdson said:

but the critical electoral college section here is the one that doesn't exist: the MPs. It's they who would be 80%+ against Corbyn and it's they who have most opportunity in the future to bring him down.

How can they? In the face of certain de-selection if they just vote once against.

JosiasJessop

Jonathan said:

Good to see Ianuuci deal with Tory folly over the bbc.


(snippy)

Man who owes his career to the BBC defends the BBC.

What a surprise.

The BBC must be quite concerned. They have been hyping their own organisation a great deal over the last few months.

Is it the BBC charter, or the Dame Janet Smith inquiry?

TCPoliticalBetting

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

Good to see Ianuuci deal with Tory folly over the bbc.

(snippy)

Man who owes his career to the BBC defends the BBC.
What a surprise.
The BBC must be quite concerned. They have been hyping their own organisation a great deal over the last few months.
Is it the BBC charter, or the Dame Janet Smith inquiry?

Producer interest. Misuse of tax payers funds on lobbying.

Innocent_Abroad

TCPoliticalBetting said:

david_herdson said:

but the critical electoral college section here is the one that doesn't exist: the MPs. It's they who would be 80%+ against Corbyn and it's they who have most opportunity in the future to bring him down.

How can they? In the face of certain de-selection if they just vote once against.

JC may solve the problem himself by asking for annual re-election. I suspect he doesn't want to lead his Party but to be the Lost Leader its activists yearn for. A much easier billet, when all's said and done.

Financier

Jonathan said:

Good to see Ianuuci deal with Tory folly over the bbc.


https://twitter.com/iainmski/status/636783090564792320?s=09

What else to expect from a pinkish LibDem?

philiph

Innocent_Abroad said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

david_herdson said:

but the critical electoral college section here is the one that doesn't exist: the MPs. It's they who would be 80%+ against Corbyn and it's they who have most opportunity in the future to bring him down.

How can they? In the face of certain de-selection if they just vote once against.

JC may solve the problem himself by asking for annual re-election. I suspect he doesn't want to lead his Party but to be the Lost Leader its activists yearn for. A much easier billet, when all's said and done.

By now I expect he thinks he should be leader.

Innocent_Abroad

philiph said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

david_herdson said:

but the critical electoral college section here is the one that doesn't exist: the MPs. It's they who would be 80%+ against Corbyn and it's they who have most opportunity in the future to bring him down.

How can they? In the face of certain de-selection if they just vote once against.

JC may solve the problem himself by asking for annual re-election. I suspect he doesn't want to lead his Party but to be the Lost Leader its activists yearn for. A much easier billet, when all's said and done.

By now I expect he thinks he should be leader.

I knew him very well indeed when we were both young. Did you?

OchEye

Casino_Royale said:

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

Er! What bad news is she trying to divert attention from today ? Or is it the attempt on the ultimate selfie?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Cuts both ways. If Corbyn gets a plurality of votes from every section, it legitimises him and makes the prospect of a quick coup [always unlikely with Labour] even less probable.

Casino_Royale

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

Good to see Ianuuci deal with Tory folly over the bbc.


(snippy)

Man who owes his career to the BBC defends the BBC.

What a surprise.

The BBC must be quite concerned. They have been hyping their own organisation a great deal over the last few months.

Is it the BBC charter, or the Dame Janet Smith inquiry?

It tells you quite a lot about what the Leftie luvvies think though: they think that the Tories are only interesting in flogging it off to their mates for profit, and so try and talk that language.

None of them stop to consider that a poll tax licence fee might not be justifiable any more in the digital age, or that the BBC is no longer serving or representing the population universally enough to compensate for that.

malcolmg

Oliver_PB said:

chestnut said:

...

Interesting, thanks for the in-depth reply.

I am under the perception that Supplementary Benefit (and later Income Support) had very little in the way of obligations and sanctions, which have steadily got increasingly tougher since the 90s. Is that accurate?

Of course we are talking about Tories here, they seem desperate to abuse the sick and unemployable.

Casino_Royale

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

Good to see Ianuuci deal with Tory folly over the bbc.


(snippy)

Man who owes his career to the BBC defends the BBC.

What a surprise.

The BBC must be quite concerned. They have been hyping their own organisation a great deal over the last few months.

Is it the BBC charter, or the Dame Janet Smith inquiry?

It tells you quite a lot about what the Leftie luvvies think though: they think that the Tories are only interesting in flogging it off to their mates for profit, and so try and talk that language.

None of them stop to consider that a poll tax licence fee might not be justifiable any more in the digital age, or that the BBC is no longer serving or representing the population universally enough to compensate for that.

malcolmg

Casino_Royale said:

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

Thicko, you have obviously never been in Scotland or know that BBC Scotland produce ZERO, they just take pap from London. All our licence money like everything else is spent in London.

Morris_Dancer

Hmm. On Sturgeon's BBC thoughts:
"She wants to see a separate board for each home nation - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - under a UK-wide board."

*cough*

Has she ever heard of England?

malcolmg

Morris_Dancer said:

Hmm. On Sturgeon's BBC thoughts:
"She wants to see a separate board for each home nation - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - under a UK-wide board."

*cough*

Has she ever heard of England?

MD as you should well know BBC = England , that is exactly the issue, exactly the same as Westminster.

richardDodd

MG Rubbish... At least one Drama series I know about is entirely sourced from Glasgow...

MattW

RobD said:

First!

I see Mr Corbyn is now Leader Corbyn. Not too far from Dear Leader Corbyn (or Comrade Corbyn for that matter)

I think Citizen Corbyn is better.

Morris_Dancer

F1: canopy question raised again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/motorsport/34060142

Got to say, I'm a bit dubious about this. Potential for trapping people, vision restriction and bits of sharp glass/plastic (or whatever it's made of) stabbing the driver if there's a massive impact which strikes the canopy are all concerns.

TCPoliticalBetting

Ogh "From the limited polling data that has been published it is clear that Corbyn is doing significantly better with the £3 voters and trade union supporters than he is with the ordinary members."
Fwiw my spreadsheet guess had corbyn slightly ahead in member section but not by much.

oxfordsimon

MattW said:

RobD said:

First!

I see Mr Corbyn is now Leader Corbyn. Not too far from Dear Leader Corbyn (or Comrade Corbyn for that matter)

I think Citizen Corbyn is better.

Power to the People!

ydoethur

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

Thicko, you have obviously never been in Scotland or know that BBC Scotland produce ZERO, they just take pap from London. All our licence money like everything else is spent in London.

There's an awful lot of drama produced by BBC Wales in Cardiff (Doctor Who being the most famous example, of course). I'm surprised to hear that Scotland doesn't have any good shows produced in house. Why would that be?

richardDodd

Casualty is also produced in Cardiff..

oxfordsimon

Miliband might have been undermined by the nature of his election numbers breakdown but not enough for the party to get rid of him. Why should it be any different this time round?

The electoral rules for challenging a sitting Labour leader make it very difficult indeed and they have never, as a body, shown the necessary guts to act on their concerns.

As far as the media are concerned, there will be far more fun to be had at Corbyn's expense on the basis of what he has said/done/supported in the past rather than the quirks of the electoral maths of his elevation to the leadership,

There is more than enough in the Corbyn back catalogue to do the undermining without worrying about the current numbers.

MattW

Jonathan said:

Good to see Ianuuci deal with Tory folly over the bbc.

https://twitter.com/iainmski/status/636783090564792320?s=09

Interesting different perceptions.

https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/636797938325450752

malcolmg

richardDodd said:

MG Rubbish... At least one Drama series I know about is entirely sourced from Glasgow...

Tell me what % of the licence fee from Scotland is spent in Scotland then

Roger

Re the BBC. The Tories are showing themselves to be philistines and it took less than four months in office. Proof positive that to be a Tory despiser has nothing to do with being left or right.

If ever anyone needs a reason why a powerful non Tory opposition is essential this is their answer.

No_Offence_Alan

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

Thicko, you have obviously never been in Scotland or know that BBC Scotland produce ZERO, they just take pap from London. All our licence money like everything else is spent in London.

Not a fan of Burnistoun or BBC Alba then?

richardDodd

MG I am not an accountant.. find out for yourself..

GeoffM

MattW said:

Interesting different perceptions.

twitter.com/iainmski/status/636783090564792320?s=09
twitter.com/mattwardman/status/636797938325450752

He has more hair in the second picture. Must be an older photograph!

ydoethur

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

JosiasJessop

oxfordsimon said:

Miliband might have been undermined by the nature of his election numbers breakdown but not enough for the party to get rid of him. Why should it be any different this time round?

The electoral rules for challenging a sitting Labour leader make it very difficult indeed and they have never, as a body, shown the necessary guts to act on their concerns.

As far as the media are concerned, there will be far more fun to be had at Corbyn's expense on the basis of what he has said/done/supported in the past rather than the quirks of the electoral maths of his elevation to the leadership,

There is more than enough in the Corbyn back catalogue to do the undermining without worrying about the current numbers.

It depends if the remaining Blairite MPs feel like they have a place in a Corbynite Labour Party.

When the situation was reversed in 1994-7, the hard left generally whinged but stuck with the Blairite project, as it was going to win. Blair also tried to mollify them - why else was the terminally stupid and hopeless Prescott made DPM and given his massive ministry?

This is different. Despite what Nick says, I cannot see the Corbynites erecting a tent large enough to include the Blairites, without the latter undergoing a road to Damascus conversion even larger than Nickr's. Just look at the poison the left have been throwing at Kendall.

I see no reason to believe that Cornbyn will have a Blair-like 'magic touch' that will lead to a win in 2020. That is what he needs to pull the party together, and even that might not be enough.

malcolmg

richardDodd said:

MG Rubbish... At least one Drama series I know about is entirely sourced from Glasgow...

Can you remember which one was actually made there

malcolmg

richardDodd said:

MG I am not an accountant.. find out for yourself..

So talking bollox as ever. Try engaging brain before you open that big Gob.

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

It is run by duds on a shoestring

richardDodd

You said there were no productions made in SCOTLAND..I proved there was...we were not discussing the percentage of spend from the license collection in Scotland..Dolt...

malcolmg

No_Offence_Alan said:

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

Thicko, you have obviously never been in Scotland or know that BBC Scotland produce ZERO, they just take pap from London. All our licence money like everything else is spent in London.

Not a fan of Burnistoun or BBC Alba then?

First one long gone and second is partly funded by Scottish government , BCC pay a few million towards it. Hardly payback for the £320M they take off us.

JackW

foxinsoxuk said:

JackW said:

"The LAB leadership election results WILL be broken down by how the different categories have voted."

The Jezzbollah Faithful - 524,217 - Elected Dear Leader.

The Mini-Cooper Run Around - 62,981 - Failed MOT.

Burnham All-At-Sea - 54,016 - Washed Up Wreck

Liz Kendall Mint Cake - 23,904 - Sweet F*ck All

Is this a sign that your ARSE is now red?

Publishing the figures by group still doesn't tell us when people joined.

Mrs JackW's Shoe Consolidation Account has a sufficiency of funds .... for now.

oxfordsimon

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

ydoethur

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

It is run by duds on a shoestring

Well, so is BBC Wales - indeed, the duds in question have to run on a tighter shoestring than BBC Scotland, as it has to produce even more bilingual programming on a lower budget! But they somehow manage. Maybe Sturgeon should be conducting her own enquiries closer to home to find out why BBC Scotland, which I fully agree should be a big hitter, is currently a bit decayed, before coming out and blaming London.

malcolmg

richardDodd said:

You said there were no productions made in SCOTLAND..I proved there was...we were not discussing the percentage of spend from the license collection in Scotland..Dolt...

You proved nothing , you said a secret drama that you could not even name was made in Scotland in your fevered imagination

Casino_Royale

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

Thicko, you have obviously never been in Scotland or know that BBC Scotland produce ZERO, they just take pap from London. All our licence money like everything else is spent in London.

Dicksplash, I lived for six years in Scotland, so jog on.

Talking out of your sporran, as usual.

Casino_Royale

Roger said:

Re the BBC. The Tories are showing themselves to be philistines and it took less than four months in office. Proof positive that to be a Tory despiser has nothing to do with being left or right.

If ever anyone needs a reason why a powerful non Tory opposition is essential this is their answer.

At least you admit it.

richardDodd

How about Waterloo Road.. just finished recently..all Scottish production.. dropped because of the poor viewing figures ..in Scotland..

malcolmg

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

LOL, you are on the ball. They put in a miniscule amount to it ie a few million pounds , and it gets 600K viewers which is probably more than the BBC get lots of times.

malcolmg

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

Has she heard of - y'know - BBC Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34070202

Thicko, you have obviously never been in Scotland or know that BBC Scotland produce ZERO, they just take pap from London. All our licence money like everything else is spent in London.

Dicksplash, I lived for six years in Scotland, so jog on.

Talking out of your sporran, as usual.

cretin , you could not find Scotland on a map. Back to spending your JSA loser.

ydoethur

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

BBC has to pay for an awful lot of bilingual stuff - it is also in effect bankrolling S4C by producing free programmes for it, plus a fully bilingual radio service (does Scotland have that - I'm not sure, not having lived there)? Yet it still manages, which is why I'm thinking this is possibly not just a question of money or centralisation.

Morris_Dancer

Come on chaps, this is meant to be a happy website.

If you can't be nice, I'll be forced to post a prolonged ramble about the forthcoming circuit of Monza. And you wouldn't want that now, would you?

malcolmg

richardDodd said:

How about Waterloo Road.. just finished recently..all Scottish production.. dropped because of the poor viewing figures ..in Scotland..

Ha Ha Ha , they flew in people from England for a few days a week so they could pretend it was made in Scotland. I knew when you were too embarrassed to name it that that was your sole programme.

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

Come on chaps, this is meant to be a happy website.

If you can't be nice, I'll be forced to post a prolonged ramble about the forthcoming circuit of Monza. And you wouldn't want that now, would you?

Mr Dancer, I could live with a ramble round Monza, as long as I was in an F1 car.

For reasons of public safety, someone else would have to drive it.

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

It is run by duds on a shoestring

Well, so is BBC Wales - indeed, the duds in question have to run on a tighter shoestring than BBC Scotland, as it has to produce even more bilingual programming on a lower budget! But they somehow manage. Maybe Sturgeon should be conducting her own enquiries closer to home to find out why BBC Scotland, which I fully agree should be a big hitter, is currently a bit decayed, before coming out and blaming London.

What can she do regarding a London outfit , run by London and controlled from Westminster. Why do you think she is asking for changes.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Doethur, might be a bit of a tight fit

OchEye

malcolmg said:

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

LOL, you are on the ball. They put in a miniscule amount to it ie a few million pounds , and it gets 600K viewers which is probably more than the BBC get lots of times.

Ah! Watch the footie on Alba with the sound off, while listening to live commentary on the radio. Heck of a lot cheaper than Sky.

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

BBC has to pay for an awful lot of bilingual stuff - it is also in effect bankrolling S4C by producing free programmes for it, plus a fully bilingual radio service (does Scotland have that - I'm not sure, not having lived there)? Yet it still manages, which is why I'm thinking this is possibly not just a question of money or centralisation.

Not aware of any radio unless Alba has a radio channel , but that is only partly funded by BBC and amounts to less than Gary Linekar's taxi bills.

richardDodd

BBC Scotland income in 2012..200 million...

JackW

BBC Scotland's output seems slightly larger than the assertion by PB's Top Turnip of "ZERO"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_produced_by_BBC_Scotland

malcolmg

OchEye said:

malcolmg said:

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

LOL, you are on the ball. They put in a miniscule amount to it ie a few million pounds , and it gets 600K viewers which is probably more than the BBC get lots of times.

Ah! Watch the footie on Alba with the sound off, while listening to live commentary on the radio. Heck of a lot cheaper than Sky.

Yes it gets a bit out of synch though as Radio is live and TV is a bit behind. So odd when they shout goal and you are wondering what they are talking about.

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Doethur, might be a bit of a tight fit

They have two seater versions, don't they? My driving would be analogous to that of Jasper Carrott's legendary mother in law (well, maybe not quite that bad):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7YuAKWcAwY

@malcolmg, she is proposing a solution without identifying the problem. Therefore she will be ignored, or thought just to be doing some separatist stirring. If she held an enquiry, found out what the problem was, and then publicised the report with a proposed solution, it would almost certainly be a lot more effective. The BBC hates well-informed criticism - look at their headless chicken reaction to the Hutton report. But this I suspect they will just brush off, which is a bit of a shame given it's clearly a real issue.

malcolmg

You have to admire the Tories, they are happy to show their graft in public , no need to hide it, lets charge our chums for our help.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/conservatives-offer-day-of-special-access-to-ministers-for-2500

richardDodd

MG You obviously have no regard for the talent available in Scotland..believe me..if a production company can source locally..much cheaper..then it will.. ..

malcolmg

richardDodd said:

BBC Scotland income in 2012..200 million...

They are doing well as it was less than £175M last year. So as BBC income rises BBC Scotland's declines.

oxfordsimon

malcolmg said:

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

LOL, you are on the ball. They put in a miniscule amount to it ie a few million pounds , and it gets 600K viewers which is probably more than the BBC get lots of times.

It doesn't get 600K viewers - it has a smaller number of people who watch a number of shows in any one given counting period.

That is just playing with numbers to try to make the station sound as if it is viable.

There are under 60,000 Gaelic speakers - the majority of whom live in the Outer Hebrides.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Doethur, they do, although that's not a real F1 car in my book.

Might be Monza's last year. Ecclestone's talking about it not being on the 2016 calendar.

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Doethur, might be a bit of a tight fit

They have two seater versions, don't they? My driving would be analogous to that of Jasper Carrott's legendary mother in law (well, maybe not quite that bad):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7YuAKWcAwY

@malcolmg, she is proposing a solution without identifying the problem. Therefore she will be ignored, or thought just to be doing some separatist stirring. If she held an enquiry, found out what the problem was, and then publicised the report with a proposed solution, it would almost certainly be a lot more effective. The BBC hates well-informed criticism - look at their headless chicken reaction to the Hutton report. But this I suspect they will just brush off, which is a bit of a shame given it's clearly a real issue.

The problem is well documented. The BBC takes £320M out of Scotland and spends a pittance on Scottish programmes , content , etc.
As I said exactly mirrors Westminster.

RobD

malcolmg said:

You have to admire the Tories, they are happy to show their graft in public , no need to hide it, lets charge our chums for our help.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/conservatives-offer-day-of-special-access-to-ministers-for-2500

Yeah, they are all at it.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/155514-parliament-watchdogs-probe-snp-cash-for-access-claims/

ydoethur

malcolmg said:

OchEye said:

malcolmg said:

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

LOL, you are on the ball. They put in a miniscule amount to it ie a few million pounds , and it gets 600K viewers which is probably more than the BBC get lots of times.

Ah! Watch the footie on Alba with the sound off, while listening to live commentary on the radio. Heck of a lot cheaper than Sky.

Yes it gets a bit out of synch though as Radio is live and TV is a bit behind. So odd when they shout goal and you are wondering what they are talking about.

Cricinfo with the radio commentary is a bit of a nightmare for that too. And we don't even get the picture (thank you Mr Murdoch and Mr Clarke and your deal of ten years ago).

malcolmg

JackW said:

BBC Scotland's output seems slightly larger than the assertion by PB's Top Turnip of "ZERO"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_produced_by_BBC_Scotland

We have the fake pie muncher joining the fray. Next you will be telling me you are Scottish.
One hopes you read the dates of when those programmes were made, most are from around the time of your fake age.

Roger

MD

"Come on chaps, this is meant to be a happy website.

If you can't be nice, I'll be forced to post a prolonged ramble about the forthcoming circuit of Monza. And you wouldn't want that now, would you?"

Saw Eddie Jordan yesterday sunning himself with the beautiful people of Paloma Beach on Cap ferrat yesterday. I was wondering where he was meandering off to next.

JackW

malcolmg said:

JackW said:

BBC Scotland's output seems slightly larger than the assertion by PB's Top Turnip of "ZERO"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_produced_by_BBC_Scotland

We have the fake pie muncher joining the fray. Next you will be telling me you are Scottish.

Next you'll be telling me you actually engage your solitary brain cell before posting.

RobD

malcolmg said:

JackW said:

BBC Scotland's output seems slightly larger than the assertion by PB's Top Turnip of "ZERO"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_produced_by_BBC_Scotland

We have the fake pie muncher joining the fray. Next you will be telling me you are Scottish.
One hopes you read the dates of when those programmes were made, most are from around the time of your fake age.

23 ongoing productions. Last time I checked, more than zero

richardDodd

MG I doubt the income figures for last year are available.. unless you are reading from an SNP propaganda sheet....but Sturgeon and your financial wizard can soon put a stop to the nonsense..Abolish BBC Scotland and create your own national broadcaster..
..and now I must away to do some serious sunbathing...

malcolmg

oxfordsimon said:

malcolmg said:

oxfordsimon said:

ydoethur said:

It is interesting, on a careful check, to see that there's only really one big show produced by BBC Scotland at the moment, Mrs Brown's Boys. There's lots of other classics made by BBC Scotland (e.g. Balamory) but they all seem to have ceased production some years ago. Meanwhile, BBC Wales has about seven or eight, including Sherlock and Doctor Who (both of which are run by a Glaswegian, admittedly a much over-rated one) and Casualty.

That does seem odd. Why can't BBC Scotland compete? I think there's probably a bit more to it than 'anti-Celtic bias'. Maybe it's got a dud management structure? If it's worse than that of the Beeb as a whole, however, then it must be quite something.

BBC Cymru Wales does seem to be operating in a far more effective way than their counterparts in Scotland.

Perhaps the focus on running BBC Alba (producing programmes in a language spoken by under 60.000 people (as of the 2011 census)) is taking too many resources from other areas.

LOL, you are on the ball. They put in a miniscule amount to it ie a few million pounds , and it gets 600K viewers which is probably more than the BBC get lots of times.

It doesn't get 600K viewers - it has a smaller number of people who watch a number of shows in any one given counting period.

That is just playing with numbers to try to make the station sound as if it is viable.

There are under 60,000 Gaelic speakers - the majority of whom live in the Outer Hebrides.

You would know no doubt. It also does English language programmes, subtitles etc. It is a reasonably popular channel which many people watch.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Roger, you do move in exalted circles. If you get any inside info, do let me know.

MattW

GeoffM said:

MattW said:

Interesting different perceptions.

twitter.com/iainmski/status/636783090564792320?s=09
twitter.com/mattwardman/status/636797938325450752

He has more hair in the second picture. Must be an older photograph!

That's the Telegraph making the PB Tories go "Ahhhh" for their lost late 1970s early middle age.

foxinsoxuk

richardDodd said:

How about Waterloo Road.. just finished recently..all Scottish production.. dropped because of the poor viewing figures ..in Scotland..

To be fair it was absolutely dire!

As a matter of interest how many BBC programmes are made in the East Midlands? We want local shows for local people...

malcolmg

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

You have to admire the Tories, they are happy to show their graft in public , no need to hide it, lets charge our chums for our help.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/conservatives-offer-day-of-special-access-to-ministers-for-2500

Yeah, they are all at it.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/155514-parliament-watchdogs-probe-snp-cash-for-access-claims/

Rob, Unfortunately for you that was proved to be bollox and downright lies. Same cannot be said for your chums.