I find it bizarre that the Conservatives should wish to mess with the BBC. It's a much-loved national institution. Sure, it has an irrational charging model but so what? People like the BBC the way it is. If the Conservatives are seen to be trying to damage it they will provoke a tidal wave of hatred, not least from small-c conservatives who would once have been their natural supporters.
Jim Pickard Electoral Commission figures indicate that @Arron_banks has given £2m and lent £3m to the Brexit cause. Another £3.2m from Peter Hargreaves.
A subscription service may work for television how would it work for radio?
Much as it works today, you don't have to have a tv licence to listen to Radio 4. In fact, the BBC could allow (a limited amount of) advertising on the Radio and make a killing.
Usual suspects bashing one of our greatest and loved institutions, the BBC. What is it with the right wing fruitcakes and the BBC?
Basically they can see what you can't - the institutionalised left-wing bias of journalists in general and BBC political commentators in particular. All you have to do is to listen how they present the news.
My foundation is named (in a rather recondite way) for Labrador... my Dad had a mine out there and when he sold his stake and repatriated the money to Britain it clearly had to be named 'Bulldog'.
Usual suspects bashing one of our greatest and loved institutions, the BBC. What is it with the right wing fruitcakes and the BBC?
You seem to miss the point that some of us are making. It is not about bashing the BBC, it is about being realistic that this renewal is suppose to be securing the future of the BBC for another 10 years. Its current model is already creaking, let alone 5+ years down the line.
The quaint idea of people sitting down a single moving picture box or a massive transistor radio is dead, but the funding model that it was based upon is not enforceable anymore. At the moment, it is the goodwill of people that continue to pay it, but more and more people will just realise that they a) don't need to b) huge amount of alternatives.
Should the Lib Dems throw in their lot with Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and UKIP, North Devon have a handy flag suitable for this unlikely coalition:
A subscription service may work for television how would it work for radio?
Much as it works today, you don't have to have a tv licence to listen to Radio 4. In fact, the BBC could allow (a limited amount of) advertising on the Radio and make a killing.
So the subscribers to the TV channels would pay non-optional surcharge to cover the cost of BBC radio. It probably wouldn't be much and people might go for it but it is a move away from the idea that you pay for what you watch.
A subscription service may work for television how would it work for radio?
Much as it works today, you don't have to have a tv licence to listen to Radio 4. In fact, the BBC could allow (a limited amount of) advertising on the Radio and make a killing.
So the subscribers to the TV channels would pay non-optional surcharge to cover the cost of BBC radio. It probably wouldn't be much and people might go for it but it is a move away from the idea that you pay for what you watch.
Under your subscription model, does the BBC receive public funding or not?
Jim Pickard Electoral Commission figures indicate that @Arron_banks has given £2m and lent £3m to the Brexit cause. Another £3.2m from Peter Hargreaves.
A subscription service may work for television how would it work for radio?
Much as it works today, you don't have to have a tv licence to listen to Radio 4. In fact, the BBC could allow (a limited amount of) advertising on the Radio and make a killing.
So the subscribers to the TV channels would pay non-optional surcharge to cover the cost of BBC radio. It probably wouldn't be much and people might go for it but it is a move away from the idea that you pay for what you watch.
BT and Sky spend my money on lots of stuff that I don't watch!
A subscription service may work for television how would it work for radio?
Much as it works today, you don't have to have a tv licence to listen to Radio 4. In fact, the BBC could allow (a limited amount of) advertising on the Radio and make a killing.
So the subscribers to the TV channels would pay non-optional surcharge to cover the cost of BBC radio. It probably wouldn't be much and people might go for it but it is a move away from the idea that you pay for what you watch.
BT and Sky spend my money on lots of stuff that I don't watch!
But will you go to jail, go directly to jail (and not collect £200!), if you refuse to pay BT and/or SKY?
A subscription service may work for television how would it work for radio?
Much as it works today, you don't have to have a tv licence to listen to Radio 4. In fact, the BBC could allow (a limited amount of) advertising on the Radio and make a killing.
So the subscribers to the TV channels would pay non-optional surcharge to cover the cost of BBC radio. It probably wouldn't be much and people might go for it but it is a move away from the idea that you pay for what you watch.
Under your subscription model, does the BBC receive public funding or not?
I am not sure why you are asking me, I don't have any sort of model in mind. Others put forward the idea of moving the BBC to a subscription service, I merely asked about how it would work for funding radio.
The Conservative Vote chart will look interesting.
The Conservative chart will look something like a smile (for Holyrood, at least).
Surprisingly no, They must be thanking their lucky stars for both the IndyRef and more importantly that the Fixed Term Parliament Act shifted the Holyrood elections from 2015 to 2016.
Problem is Fallon made a fool of himself with his comments on the Mayoral election in London, Greg Clark was utterly useless on QT two weeks ago and Justine Greening has had a lot of bad press because her department has given money to stupid causes. My hope would be for Dominic Raab if the party wants to take a chance or Gove if it wants to play safe.
Mr. Wanderer, it does amuse me when political journalists refer to loyal followers as a Praetorian Guard, given the Praetorians probably deposed and killed more emperors than they saved.
2015 was the worst ever votes share the Conservatives got in Scotland. Eight hundred votes or so different (400 on swing) and Mundell would have lost his seat making it the worst ever result ever.
So plenty of scope for improvement.
Of course, turnout at Holyrood was 55%, turnout at the general election was 71% in Scotland.
Yes and Kirsty is left either letting in the unholy alliance of Plaid, UKIP and the Conservatives or opting to prolong the chaos in the hope something changes like the UKIP group breaking up.
Interesting article, Mr. Mortimer. I agree May is the value, 8/1 is too long. Fallon at 50/1 may be tradeable but I'm not sure I can see him getting into the final two.
I don't know which England international is more injury prone, Welbeck, Wilshere, or Walcott ....hnourable mentions to Oxlade Chamberlain, Sturridge, .....
2015 was the worst ever votes share the Conservatives got in Scotland. Eight hundred votes or so different (400 on swing) and Mundell would have lost his seat making it the worst ever result ever.
So plenty of scope for improvement.
Of course, turnout at Holyrood was 55%, turnout at the general election was 71% in Scotland.
The SNP have inherited some of Labour's lazy voters, and lost a few in the leafier areas.
Do you know @Pulpstar (or others) whether the Labyrinthine system in West Virginia (geographic distribution wise) actually resulted in Trump not getting all 34 delegates?
2015 was the worst ever votes share the Conservatives got in Scotland. Eight hundred votes or so different (400 on swing) and Mundell would have lost his seat making it the worst ever result ever.
So plenty of scope for improvement.
Of course, turnout at Holyrood was 55%, turnout at the general election was 71% in Scotland.
The SNP have inherited some of Labour's lazy voters, and lost a few in the leafier areas.
By gaining Glasgow they've gained the Lazy voters. But in terms of rural areas their vote mostly stayed static, minor increases or decreases in absolute numbers in very safe seats but the boost in turnout from the Tory surge made their vote share go down even as their total votes went up. The only significant vote crash in the NE was where Alex Salmond stepped down.
Do you know @Pulpstar (or others) whether the Labyrinthine system in West Virginia (geographic distribution wise) actually resulted in Trump not getting all 34 delegates?
Hah ! That's a good question
22 at-large delegates (10 at-large plus 12 bonus) are directly elected statewide. Of these 22 At-Large delegates that will be selected on the statewide ballot not more than 2 may come from the same county and only the 7 top vote-getters from each Congressional District that have been voted on by all Republican primary voters in the state, are elected as Delegates- among the 21 of these 22 not including the delegate-candidate with the most votes statewide; since the top vote-getting At-Large Delegate is immune to geographic restrictions (that is: the delegate-candidate with the most votes is elected outright in any event), he/she will not factor into the geographically-determined counts restricting the other 21 At Large Delegates. Please note that, despite these geographical restrictions, this system does allow, say, a voter in CD 3 to cast his/her vote for At-Large delegate-candidates in CD 1 or CD 2 and vice versa.
"So the answer to my question is no, none of the Brexiteers can reconcile their wild claims.
Thanks"
Too busy heading for the nuclear fall-out shelters when they win.
I'd assumed that Cameron would cut out the nonsensical WW3 claims, but no. If you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one. What's the phrase ... jumping the shark?
Do you know @Pulpstar (or others) whether the Labyrinthine system in West Virginia (geographic distribution wise) actually resulted in Trump not getting all 34 delegates?
Hah ! That's a good question
22 at-large delegates (10 at-large plus 12 bonus) are directly elected statewide. Of these 22 At-Large delegates that will be selected on the statewide ballot not more than 2 may come from the same county and only the 7 top vote-getters from each Congressional District that have been voted on by all Republican primary voters in the state, are elected as Delegates- among the 21 of these 22 not including the delegate-candidate with the most votes statewide; since the top vote-getting At-Large Delegate is immune to geographic restrictions (that is: the delegate-candidate with the most votes is elected outright in any event), he/she will not factor into the geographically-determined counts restricting the other 21 At Large Delegates. Please note that, despite these geographical restrictions, this system does allow, say, a voter in CD 3 to cast his/her vote for At-Large delegate-candidates in CD 1 or CD 2 and vice versa.
The forecast had been made that the top 22 delegates, even though all would be Trump, some ( I think it was 7) would be ineligible and effectively pass over to another candidate.
2015 was the worst ever votes share the Conservatives got in Scotland. Eight hundred votes or so different (400 on swing) and Mundell would have lost his seat making it the worst ever result ever.
So plenty of scope for improvement.
Of course, turnout at Holyrood was 55%, turnout at the general election was 71% in Scotland.
The SNP have inherited some of Labour's lazy voters, and lost a few in the leafier areas.
By gaining Glasgow they've gained the Lazy voters. But in terms of rural areas their vote mostly stayed static, minor increases or decreases in absolute numbers in very safe seats but the boost in turnout from the Tory surge made their vote share go down even as their total votes went up. The only significant vote crash in the NE was where Alex Salmond stepped down.
East Renfrewshire looks like a Tory-SNP marginal in 2020 to me now, for sure.
On several occasions she has been willing to quote faked up statistics from the Despatch Box, *after* they had been shown to be dishonest and/or false.
One example was the claim that "90% of junior doctors" would leave, after it had been shown to be a voodoo poll from a striking Drs' facebook page.
The lady is not competent, even at deception.
The others, maybe, though I took my profit on Jarvis for leader when he declared himself out.
Excellent thread header well done. Nice to see something that is not either blatantly partisan or sneering. I like partisan views, don't really object to abuse, but that should be reserved for the posts.
2015 was the worst ever votes share the Conservatives got in Scotland. Eight hundred votes or so different (400 on swing) and Mundell would have lost his seat making it the worst ever result ever.
So plenty of scope for improvement.
Of course, turnout at Holyrood was 55%, turnout at the general election was 71% in Scotland.
The SNP have inherited some of Labour's lazy voters, and lost a few in the leafier areas.
By gaining Glasgow they've gained the Lazy voters. But in terms of rural areas their vote mostly stayed static, minor increases or decreases in absolute numbers in very safe seats but the boost in turnout from the Tory surge made their vote share go down even as their total votes went up. The only significant vote crash in the NE was where Alex Salmond stepped down.
East Renfrewshire looks like a Tory-SNP marginal in 2020 to me now, for sure.
Tories should look to win the three borders seats and run the SNP close across as much of rural Scotland as possible, in order to frame those seats as Tory v SNP, other parties irrelevant.
Do you know @Pulpstar (or others) whether the Labyrinthine system in West Virginia (geographic distribution wise) actually resulted in Trump not getting all 34 delegates?
"The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the West Virginia's Republican Party, will attend the convention, by virtue of their position, bound to the candidate receiving the most votes statewide."
Do you know @Pulpstar (or others) whether the Labyrinthine system in West Virginia (geographic distribution wise) actually resulted in Trump not getting all 34 delegates?
"The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the West Virginia's Republican Party, will attend the convention, by virtue of their position, bound to the candidate receiving the most votes statewide."
If you examine the election vote closely, there is a clear alphabet effect present.
2015 was the worst ever votes share the Conservatives got in Scotland. Eight hundred votes or so different (400 on swing) and Mundell would have lost his seat making it the worst ever result ever.
So plenty of scope for improvement.
Of course, turnout at Holyrood was 55%, turnout at the general election was 71% in Scotland.
The SNP have inherited some of Labour's lazy voters, and lost a few in the leafier areas.
By gaining Glasgow they've gained the Lazy voters. But in terms of rural areas their vote mostly stayed static, minor increases or decreases in absolute numbers in very safe seats but the boost in turnout from the Tory surge made their vote share go down even as their total votes went up. The only significant vote crash in the NE was where Alex Salmond stepped down.
East Renfrewshire looks like a Tory-SNP marginal in 2020 to me now, for sure.
Hmmm, I'm wondering if it will be marginal or a easy Con win.
Already 81.1% turnout so 10% points higher than national turnout so not much scope for a Tory vote surge.
2015 results SNP Kirsten Oswald 23,013 Labour Jim Murphy 19,295 Conservative David Montgomery 12,465
Big gap for Cons to close but that was on the SNP getting 50% of the vote. The equivalent Scottish constituency, Eastwood, doesn't contain Barrhead.
In East wood the Conservatives went from 33.36% of the vote to 35.7% of the vote, the SNP went from 24.36% to 31.2%. Turnout was up 6% points. LAbour lost only 1500 physical votes but their vote share went from 39.66 to 30.6%. No Lib Dems to speak of.
Interesting seat for 2020. No idea how to call it.
On several occasions she has been willing to quote faked up statistics from the Despatch Box, *after* they had been shown to be dishonest and/or false.
One example was the claim that "90% of junior doctors" would leave, after it had been shown to be a voodoo poll from a striking Drs' facebook page.
The lady is not competent, even at deception.
The others, maybe, though I took my profit on Jarvis for leader when he declared himself out.
If using junk statistics is a hanging offence then few politicians or PB posters would be long for this world. Just this week Hunts claim that there was excess stroke mortality associated with weekend admissions was shown to be untrue.
Heidi Alexander has been one of Corbyns more effective frontbenchers, both in the House and has managed to not put her foot in her mouth when in front of the media. There are lots of worse choices!
You may not like her position on the strikes, but polling shows the public is on the junior docs side.
I do not know if she has leadrrship ambitions, but not a bad longshot if looking for a left wing next generation leader who does not have a lot of baggage.
Do you know @Pulpstar (or others) whether the Labyrinthine system in West Virginia (geographic distribution wise) actually resulted in Trump not getting all 34 delegates?
"The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the West Virginia's Republican Party, will attend the convention, by virtue of their position, bound to the candidate receiving the most votes statewide."
If you examine the election vote closely, there is a clear alphabet effect present.
Certainly looks like it. Maybe I should change my name to Aaron Aaranovitch.
@Alistair I think the only (near) certainty is that you can more or less rule Labour out
That's 19000 votes you have to account for then. Even allowing for a 3000 voter turnout surge for the Conservatives if the SNP are running at 50% national polling in 2020 (Big If) then the Cons need to get 10000 Lab supporters to switch to them without any Lab leakage to the SNP. Big ask.
Problem is Fallon made a fool of himself with his comments on the Mayoral election in London, Greg Clark was utterly useless on QT two weeks ago and Justine Greening has had a lot of bad press because her department has given money to stupid causes. My hope would be for Dominic Raab if the party wants to take a chance or Gove if it wants to play safe.
I absolutely agree about Dominic Raab. He gave another very good performance on Daily Politics the other day.
Looks like Labour will have to have a chat with Plaid, give them some concessions or some such and then get Jones elected. If Labour withdraw Carwyn and actually let Wood get elected, I can't see the whole shebang lasting another 4 weeks let alone 4 years !
Comments
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/vexillology/images/7/76/Newfoundland_and_Labrador_Province_Canada_Flag_Proposal_No_2_Designed_By_Stephen_Richard_Barlow_15SEP2014_at_1117hrs_cst.png/revision/latest?cb=20140915162022
Jim Pickard
Electoral Commission figures indicate that @Arron_banks has given £2m and lent £3m to the Brexit cause. Another £3.2m from Peter Hargreaves.
If they want to run adverts, they should be allowed to but frankly, I think they'd trash their market appeal if they did.
It was an open Primary.
https://twitter.com/HolyroodDaily/status/730358388517965825
The quaint idea of people sitting down a single moving picture box or a massive transistor radio is dead, but the funding model that it was based upon is not enforceable anymore. At the moment, it is the goodwill of people that continue to pay it, but more and more people will just realise that they a) don't need to b) huge amount of alternatives.
Thanks
https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/730410806588919809
'like Leicester sacking Ranieri'
Quite good.
Different people have different views.
Usual suspects bashing one of our greatest and loved institutions, the BBC. What is it with the right wing fruitcakes and the BBC?'
What is it with these left wing nutters that hate choice, competition and want to enforce payment for a TV channel through threat of prison ?
Clinton 41%
Trump: 40%
Undecided: 19%
Margin of Error +/-3%
Poll conducted May 6-10
The Vice-President is ex-officio President of the Senate, and settles all ties.
So plenty of scope for improvement.
Of course, turnout at Holyrood was 55%, turnout at the general election was 71% in Scotland.
Edit:- Forgot Luke Shaw,
• Alleged payment believed to be under scrutiny by French police
• Pressure on IOC to investigate links between Diack regime and Olympic bids
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/11/tokyo-olympics-payment-diack-2020-games
22 at-large delegates (10 at-large plus 12 bonus) are directly elected statewide. Of these 22 At-Large delegates that will be selected on the statewide ballot not more than 2 may come from the same county and only the 7 top vote-getters from each Congressional District that have been voted on by all Republican primary voters in the state, are elected as Delegates- among the 21 of these 22 not including the delegate-candidate with the most votes statewide; since the top vote-getting At-Large Delegate is immune to geographic restrictions (that is: the delegate-candidate with the most votes is elected outright in any event), he/she will not factor into the geographically-determined counts restricting the other 21 At Large Delegates. Please note that, despite these geographical restrictions, this system does allow, say, a voter in CD 3 to cast his/her vote for At-Large delegate-candidates in CD 1 or CD 2 and vice versa.
"So the answer to my question is no, none of the Brexiteers can reconcile their wild claims.
Thanks"
Too busy heading for the nuclear fall-out shelters when they win.
I'd assumed that Cameron would cut out the nonsensical WW3 claims, but no. If you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one. What's the phrase ... jumping the shark?
I fear Cameron has nuked the shark, and made himself look silly.
On several occasions she has been willing to quote faked up statistics from the Despatch Box, *after* they had been shown to be dishonest and/or false.
One example was the claim that "90% of junior doctors" would leave, after it had been shown to be a voodoo poll from a striking Drs' facebook page.
The lady is not competent, even at deception.
The others, maybe, though I took my profit on Jarvis for leader when he declared himself out.
That takes some skill
Thank you mortimer.
The other 3 are presumably
"The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the West Virginia's Republican Party, will attend the convention, by virtue of their position, bound to the candidate receiving the most votes statewide."
https://twitter.com/Plaid_Cymru/status/593896647781969920
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-36264089
shake the place up.
Already 81.1% turnout so 10% points higher than national turnout so not much scope for a Tory vote surge. Big gap for Cons to close but that was on the SNP getting 50% of the vote. The equivalent Scottish constituency, Eastwood, doesn't contain Barrhead.
In East wood the Conservatives went from 33.36% of the vote to 35.7% of the vote, the SNP went from 24.36% to 31.2%. Turnout was up 6% points. LAbour lost only 1500 physical votes but their vote share went from 39.66 to 30.6%. No Lib Dems to speak of.
Interesting seat for 2020. No idea how to call it.
'Napoleon had a Bercow complex'
Heidi Alexander has been one of Corbyns more effective frontbenchers, both in the House and has managed to not put her foot in her mouth when in front of the media. There are lots of worse choices!
You may not like her position on the strikes, but polling shows the public is on the junior docs side.
I do not know if she has leadrrship ambitions, but not a bad longshot if looking for a left wing next generation leader who does not have a lot of baggage.
The Tories might regret being junior partner in a Plaid led Welsh Government.
https://twitter.com/camanpour/status/730420137170485248
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index