I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
It also what's not in articles like that, because they only think of the issue from an EU-centric point of view.
Mrs Sandpit is a non-EU citizen, her chances of getting a British visa go up substantially because of Brexit.
Hmmm... I suspect that, given non-EU immigration has been running at twice the government's target for TOTAL immigration, that there will be more restrictions on non-EU immigration rather than less.
Only if you view Prime Minister May's government as being obsessive in the desire to meet the target at all cost and the prior government with Home Secretary May as having no interest in it at all.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Given they won 65% of the combined vote in the Holyrood elections for Orkney and Shetland (separate constituencies), I think that is likely to be by far their safest seat.
If the Holyrood elections are a good guide (and they were for 2015), the LDs are in with a good shout of picking up two Scottish seats from the SNP.
More seriously, the reduction in the number of seats was always going to hit smaller parties hardest.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
Yeah Channel 4 would never have cooking shows like GBBO or Come Dine With Me etc
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
The point being the world doesn't work like that. When it was just BBC / ITV they could get away with it, now there there are lots of people willing to pay for content. In the same way football clubs can't keep their best players with no forward planning, just because they gave them their start.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine. But on the news, in every bloody magazine, on the radio: it's too much. They're just cakes, for god's sake. And our mothers who lived through all the 50's stuff were only too glad to get away from endless bloody baking and cooking and daily shopping and cleaning up afterwards. It's all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I am with you on that. But my favourite programme at present is heavier stuff, Ray Donovan (Sky Atlantic), sadly one more left to watch in the series called Rattus Rattus.
Is that any good. I remember watching the pilot and think hmm perhaps could be, but then totally forgot about it.
The first series is grim stuff. If you can get through that, it gets better as it has many fine actors involved.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Rumours about Trump's health are probably about to explode
You mean his opponents need to create some rumours to balance out the suspicion? It's a laughable direction to take.
There's been rumours for a while: his comically laughable doctors note, his repeated claims he will release health records then never following through, his series of mysteriously cancelled events and now his campaign manager telling the press to back off medical issues.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Bake Off is the only thing (other than sport) that we watch live in our household. It's surprisingly good TV, but I think it's utterly dependent on Mel and Sue. They are staggeringly and wonderfully inappropriate at times, and their double entendres are appalling. It's the only reality TV show where the hosts sometimes sabotage the competitors by eating essential ingredients.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Why does the BBC never manage to stretch a popular season of a series past six episodes? Or only make one or two episodes of Sherlock every eighteen months?
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
50% of the electorate whites without degrees? America is only 70% white so that is bs as about 47% of white people have degrees in the u.s so white people without degrees is only 37% of the electorate, they would have to have a turnout differential of 13 percentage points! Not going to happen!
This shows how rubbish Clinton is as even though Trump is chasing just over a third of the US electorate he is close to her in vote share.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
It's the only UK TV program I watch. Though that's mainly to keep my daughter company. I shall face the loss of Bake Off with my usual magisterial imperturbability. I can't promise the same when Game of Thrones comes to a conclusion. There may be tears.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Why does the BBC never manage to stretch a popular season of a series past six episodes? Or only make one or two episodes of Sherlock every eighteen months?
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
I don't buy it.
Well, they can make 13 episodes of Doctor Who per season. But I tend to agree, frankly - maybe I've watched too much american tv, and I absolutely accept it is possible to make great episodes and a great season with few episodes, but I feel like 10-13 per year for a hit show is a bare minimum in most cases.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine. But on the news, in every bloody magazine, on the radio: it's too much. They're just cakes, for god's sake. And our mothers who lived through all the 50's stuff were only too glad to get away from endless bloody baking and cooking and daily shopping and cleaning up afterwards. It's all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
Surely the whole point is that now people, specifically women, are no longer chained to the kitchen, so to speak, having the time to really invest in become skilled in the culinary arts is a much more appealing fantasy, particularly presented in idealised fashion with relatable human stories as accompaniment. People make videogames, really realistic ones, which simulate farming, or truck driving and the like. Most people don't like the grind and hard work of either, but they enjoy a simulacrum of them.
Sure, it's hyped - I don't really recall hearing about it much until the last few years, so it's definitely gotten bigger - but a lot of things get hyped and many are a lot worse than Bake Off and much more likely to have lasting cultural impact.
European Commission @EU_Commission President @JunckerEU is preparing to deliver the State of the Union address tomorrow. Tune in at 9am CET #SOTEU
He's very lucky that Spain is without a government, and is desperately hoping that the Socialists get in (they won't), because it's his only chance of keeping his job.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
It's the box-ticking quota approach to the contestants that is so obvious: some young, some straight, some gay, some black, some white, some religious..
I know they have to represent the nation, but it seems to be their primary concern rather than the baking and it's very obvious where their priorities lie: lovely though she is (and she is) Nadiya Hussain seems to have been all over the BBC commenting on everything since she won.
It's just a way of thinking at the BBC that reflects the concerns of its workforce.
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Except that it is reasonable to assumed that the last GE, with the LDs fresh out of government, was their rock bottom, and that the next GE has to be better. So they should stand a good chance of retaining most of their current redrawn seats and winning some back from the Tories, who will have to carry the unpopularity of being in government alone in 2020. Without such an assumption it is hard to map out a future for them anyway.
Well, we shall see: assuming an election in 2020 on the new boundaries then they still have nearly four years to attempt some kind of recovery.
On the other hand, the yellows were worn down to bedrock support of around 10% by 2011, and have shown no meaningful signs of recovery throughout the years since then. Indeed, for the last couple of years they've actually declined in the polls, and now typically score more like 8% (about the same as the actual vote share they achieved in the 2015 GE.)
The Lib Dems are now a minor party, set back half-a-century in a single election and struggling desperately to be heard. Nor do I see how any of the factors that contributed to the 2015 rout are likely not to be a factor in 2020. Middle class social democrat voters who felt betrayed by the Coalition show no interest in coming back from Corbyn Labour or the Greens. Ukip are now the repository for protest votes. The Yellow Tory vote went back to the Conservatives out of fear of the creation of a left-wing coalition of the defeated, and they have no reason to change sides again - especially now that the SNP is even stronger, Labour has been captured by the Hard Left and the Lib Dems have also moved leftwards away from them.
I know that the Lib Dems, and the Liberals before them, have shown extraordinary tenacity in surviving for nearly a hundred years since being supplanted by Labour, but you have to wonder whether they're reaching the end of the road at last. If there was going to be a long-term future for a liberal party in a small c-conservative country like ours, then you would have to imagine that it would be a socially liberal, economically centre-right party looking primarily to hold on to the Yellow Tory vote: something a bit like the German FDP. As it is, if there were to be a realignment on the Left involving a formal split of the Labour Party, then one could well imagine the new centre-left party swallowing the Lib Dems whole.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Why does the BBC never manage to stretch a popular season of a series past six episodes? Or only make one or two episodes of Sherlock every eighteen months?
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
I don't buy it.
I think it's because US series tend to have enormous teams of scriptwriters, while in the UK it's usually just a couple of people.
''You mean his opponents need to create some rumours to balance out the suspicion? It's a laughable direction to take. ''
The democrats are like England playing Iceland in the Euros. You can see the rabbit in the headlights looks.
The Republicans are currently walking right into the basket of deplorable snare. Clinton's 'misphrasing' of a line she has been using for weeks but not getting much media notice of sure was 'unfortunate'
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine. But on the news, in every bloody magazine, on the radio: it's too much. They're just cakes, for god's sake. And our mothers who lived through all the 50's stuff were only too glad to get away from endless bloody baking and cooking and daily shopping and cleaning up afterwards. It's all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
Surely the whole point is that now people, specifically women, are no longer chained to the kitchen, so to speak, having the time to really invest in become skilled in the culinary arts is a much more appealing fantasy, particularly presented in idealised fashion with relatable human stories as accompaniment.
Sure, it's hyped - I don't really recall hearing about it much until the last few years, so it's definitely gotten bigger - but a lot of things get hyped and many are a lot worse than Bake Off and much more likely to have lasting cultural impact.
A programme showing how to create nutritious meals for 5 day in, day out on a budget, every single day for the best part of two decades while being a working mum and without taking up hours of limited free time would be much more realistic and useful, though utterly dull as a programme.
Women still do the bulk of housework even if they work outside the home. It still feels like a chain, unless you're content to live in utter mess. We should start chaining men to the house and give them some Flash bleach with a list of things that need cleaning: the loo, for a start.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine. But on the news, in every bloody magazine, on the radio: it's too much. They're just cakes, for god's sake. And our mothers who lived through all the 50's stuff were only too glad to get away from endless bloody baking and cooking and daily shopping and cleaning up afterwards. It's all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
Harmless fun for the harmless. I guess we were spoiled at some point in thinking that the BBC (for example) might deliver anything other than brain-washing for the masses. That's our fault though in that they just deliver to a mandate.
The big issue is that if any one of us really decided to think we'd run away from where we are like mad things. At some point someone will capture all of that and do something astonishing. A sort of super-kennedy, we choose to do these things because they are hard.
I'm not even sure I prefer 'hard' (like death etc) to bake-off.
Perhaps this is why we haven't found inteligent life - they've all just gently bake-offed themselves away.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Why does the BBC never manage to stretch a popular season of a series past six episodes? Or only make one or two episodes of Sherlock every eighteen months?
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
I don't buy it.
Well, they can make 13 episodes of Doctor Who per season. But I tend to agree, frankly - maybe I've watched too much american tv, and I absolutely accept it is possible to make great episodes and a great season with few episodes, but I feel like 10-13 per year for a hit show is a bare minimum in most cases.
That would be fine if the less is more rule held.
But too often it doesn't.
Amazon and HBO pump out terrific show after show year after year with very few bloopers.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Why does the BBC never manage to stretch a popular season of a series past six episodes? Or only make one or two episodes of Sherlock every eighteen months?
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
I don't buy it.
Well, they can make 13 episodes of Doctor Who per season. But I tend to agree, frankly - maybe I've watched too much american tv, and I absolutely accept it is possible to make great episodes and a great season with few episodes, but I feel like 10-13 per year for a hit show is a bare minimum in most cases.
That would be fine if the less is more rule held.
But too often it doesn't.
Amazon and HBO pump out terrific show after show year after year with very few bloopers.
Oh, american tv is leagues better than ours, it's not even a contest. Canada produces some good stuff too.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine. But on the news, in every bloody magazine, on the radio: it's too much. They're just cakes, for god's sake. And our mothers who lived through all the 50's stuff were only too glad to get away from endless bloody baking and cooking and daily shopping and cleaning up afterwards. It's all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
Surely the whole point is that now people, specifically women, are no longer chained to the kitchen, so to speak, having the time to really invest in become skilled in the culinary arts is a much more appealing fantasy, particularly presented in idealised fashion with relatable human stories as accompaniment.
Sure, it's hyped - I don't really recall hearing about it much until the last few years, so it's definitely gotten bigger - but a lot of things get hyped and many are a lot worse than Bake Off and much more likely to have lasting cultural impact.
A programme showing how to create nutritious meals for 5 day in, day out on a budget, every single day for the best part of two decades while being a working mum and without taking up hours of limited free time would be much more realistic and useful, though utterly dull as a programme.
Precisely. TV shows are about fantasy, GBBO provides one. Not one everyone enjoys, but plenty do. Personally, I'd like a lot more historical fantasy dramas, but you cannot have everything and they're much more expensive to make.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
It's the only UK TV program I watch. Though that's mainly to keep my daughter company. I shall face the loss of Bake Off with my usual magisterial imperturbability. I can't promise the same when Game of Thrones comes to a conclusion. There may be tears.
I have never seen Game of Thrones. The only programme I watch regularly is Gardeners' World, initially for Monty but now increasingly for Nigel, the dog, who is an absolute - and delightful - media tart.
There are, however, some fantastic documentaries you can get on iPlayer and I watch those on my way into work. "The Joys of the Guitar Riff" is my current choice.
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Except that it is reasonable to assumed that the last
Well, we shall see: assuming an election in 2020 on the new boundaries then they still have nearly four years to attempt some kind of recovery.
On the other hand, the yellows were worn down to bedrock support of around 10% by 2011, and have shown no meaningful signs of recovery throughout the years since then. Indeed, for the last couple of years they've actually declined in the polls, and now typically score more like 8% (about the same as the actual vote share they achieved in the 2015 GE.)
The Lib Dems are now a minor party, set back half-a-century in a single election and struggling desperately to be heard. Nor do I see how any of the factors that contributed to the 2015 rout are likely not to be a factor in 2020. Middle class social democrat voters who felt betrayed by the Coalition show no interest in coming back from Corbyn Labour or the Greens. Ukip are now the repository for protest votes. The Yellow Tory vote went back to the Conservatives out of fear of the creation of a left-wing coalition of the defeated, and they have no reason to change sides again - especially now that the SNP is even stronger, Labour has been captured by the Hard Left and the Lib Dems have also moved leftwards away from them.
I know that the Lib Dems, and the Liberals before them, have shown extraordinary tenacity in surviving for nearly a hundred years since being supplanted by Labour, but you have to wonder whether they're reaching the end of the road at last. If there was going to be a long-term future for a liberal party in a small c-conservative country like ours, then you would have to imagine that it would be a socially liberal, economically centre-right party looking primarily to hold on to the Yellow Tory vote: something a bit like the German FDP. As it is, if there were to be a realignment on the Left involving a formal split of the Labour Party, then one could well imagine the new centre-left party swallowing the Lib Dems whole.
Though paradoxically the yellow Tories can now return to the LDs as there is no chance at all of a Corbyn led left wing coalition, having destroyed SLAB and the softer Left.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Why does the BBC never manage to stretch a popular season of a series past six episodes? Or only make one or two episodes of Sherlock every eighteen months?
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
I don't buy it.
I think it's because US series tend to have enormous teams of scriptwriters, while in the UK it's usually just a couple of people.
After a traditional British short first season This Life used a team of writers for a much longer second season.
The writing/authorship tradition of British and American telly is completely different.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
''You mean his opponents need to create some rumours to balance out the suspicion? It's a laughable direction to take. ''
The democrats are like England playing Iceland in the Euros. You can see the rabbit in the headlights looks.
The Republicans are currently walking right into the basket of deplorable snare. Clinton's 'misphrasing' of a line she has been using for weeks but not getting much media notice of sure was 'unfortunate'
Just like when people said Leave repeating the Obama back of the queue line was a bad idea or Dave's little Englander line was a bad idea?
There is no trap, Clinton absolutely fucked up by insulting voters. It's worse than Romney's 47% line because these are the voters that used to be the Dems bread and butter before they started playing identity politics.
Well, we shall see: assuming an election in 2020 on the new boundaries then they still have nearly four years to attempt some kind of recovery.
On the other hand, the yellows were worn down to bedrock support of around 10% by 2011, and have shown no meaningful signs of recovery throughout the years since then. Indeed, for the last couple of years they've actually declined in the polls, and now typically score more like 8% (about the same as the actual vote share they achieved in the 2015 GE.)
The Lib Dems are now a minor party, set back half-a-century in a single election and struggling desperately to be heard. Nor do I see how any of the factors that contributed to the 2015 rout are likely not to be a factor in 2020. Middle class social democrat voters who felt betrayed by the Coalition show no interest in coming back from Corbyn Labour or the Greens. Ukip are now the repository for protest votes. The Yellow Tory vote went back to the Conservatives out of fear of the creation of a left-wing coalition of the defeated, and they have no reason to change sides again - especially now that the SNP is even stronger, Labour has been captured by the Hard Left and the Lib Dems have also moved leftwards away from them.
I know that the Lib Dems, and the Liberals before them, have shown extraordinary tenacity in surviving for nearly a hundred years since being supplanted by Labour, but you have to wonder whether they're reaching the end of the road at last. If there was going to be a long-term future for a liberal party in a small c-conservative country like ours, then you would have to imagine that it would be a socially liberal, economically centre-right party looking primarily to hold on to the Yellow Tory vote: something a bit like the German FDP. As it is, if there were to be a realignment on the Left involving a formal split of the Labour Party, then one could well imagine the new centre-left party swallowing the Lib Dems whole.
No political party has a right to exist.
But I read the tea leaves differently to you. Since the 2015 general election, the LibDems staged a meaningful recovery in last year's local elections, and in Holyrood. (On this site, there was a lot of serious discussion about whether the LibDems would lose the last of their constituency seats in Holyrood.)
This indicates to me - as do the by-election victories - that the LibDem activist base is beginning to move into gear. This is, of course, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a LibDem recovery.
Now, will they ever get back to a quarter of the vote? I doubt it. But could they get to 12-14% in the polls, and a similar number of seats, in 2020? Right now, I'd reckon that was quite likely.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
Interesting proposals in my part of East London from the Boundary Commission. East Ham remains largely intact but West Ham disappears with five of the western Newham wards heading to the new Bow & Canning Town seat while the northern Wards which were part of Ilford South go to the new Forest Gate & Loxford seat.
Not too much for Labour to be worried about in all honesty and the fact remains East Ham remains a large constituency numerically.
As Mark S wisely reminds us, what we see now and what we finally get may look very different.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
It's the box-ticking quota approach to the contestants that is so obvious: some young, some straight, some gay, some black, some white, some religious..
I know they have to represent the nation, but it seems to be their primary concern rather than the baking and it's very obvious where their priorities lie: lovely though she is (and she is) Nadiya Hussain seems to have been all over the BBC commenting on everything since she won.
It's just a way of thinking at the BBC that reflects the concerns of its workforce.
I find Nadiya to be extremely dull and I don't care about her background. I'm sure she is a very nice lady, but there is nothing interesting about her.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
Need to get my wife into that. She loves legal shows and hasn't seen it yet.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
It's the box-ticking quota approach to the contestants that is so obvious: some young, some straight, some gay, some black, some white, some religious..
I know they have to represent the nation, but it seems to be their primary concern rather than the baking and it's very obvious where their priorities lie: lovely though she is (and she is) Nadiya Hussain seems to have been all over the BBC commenting on everything since she won.
It's just a way of thinking at the BBC that reflects the concerns of its workforce.
I find Nadiya to be extremely dull and I don't care about her background. I'm sure she is a very nice lady, but there is nothing interesting about her.
In fairness to the BBC the other contender for the title was a box ticking bonanza that year being a gay, south Asian junior Doctor.
I find it interesting how the BBC keep losing stars and shows due to their own managerial incompetence claiming, as bloated public sector organisations always do, a 'lack of money' yet their own bureaucracy always seems to stay intact.
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
A former BBC controller kinda of let it out the bag on Newsnight. She was outraged, as in her day there was an unwritten rule that if you made a show for the BBC and the BBC wanted to keep it you didn't take it anywhere else. How dare a company want to go and get the maximum return for their product.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
I presume point being that the BBC gives chances to shows that the commercial channels wouldn't touch.
But the BBC has been playing catch up with American drama and even ITV to some degree. Only BBC4 is real public service programming. The rest is just awful with a few bright spots like the GBBO and Poldark for people who like it.
Why does the BBC never manage to stretch a popular season of a series past six episodes? Or only make one or two episodes of Sherlock every eighteen months?
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
I don't buy it.
Well, they can make 13 episodes of Doctor Who per season. But I tend to agree, frankly - maybe I've watched too much american tv, and I absolutely accept it is possible to make great episodes and a great season with few episodes, but I feel like 10-13 per year for a hit show is a bare minimum in most cases.
That would be fine if the less is more rule held.
But too often it doesn't.
Amazon and HBO pump out terrific show after show year after year with very few bloopers.
Oh, american tv is leagues better than ours, it's not even a contest. Canada produces some good stuff too.
Amazon and HBO pump out terrific show after show year after year with very few bloopers.
The BBC wants to put out as many different shows as possible.
It creates some weird effects, greater variety means there is a greater chance than normal that the BBC will find a hit. But it limits the time given to any specific show or series no matter how successful they are, so it stifles development of successful shows and series.
The characters may get too old to play, the audience may forget about it by the next season.
The only exception to the BBC rule was the 5th Series of Allo Allo, with 26 episodes.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
It's the box-ticking quota approach to the contestants that is so obvious: some young, some straight, some gay, some black, some white, some religious..
I know they have to represent the nation, but it seems to be their primary concern rather than the baking and it's very obvious where their priorities lie: lovely though she is (and she is) Nadiya Hussain seems to have been all over the BBC commenting on everything since she won.
It's just a way of thinking at the BBC that reflects the concerns of its workforce.
I find Nadiya to be extremely dull and I don't care about her background. I'm sure she is a very nice lady, but there is nothing interesting about her.
In fairness to the BBC the other contender for the title was a box ticking bonanza that year being a gay, south Asian junior Doctor.
Who was also extremely boring. Nothing against them, but really they are just bakers. I don't expect them to be larger than life personalities who do well on TV. Even Big Brother is probably a better proving ground for TV talent than the GBBO.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
I used to really enjoy police procedurals, but nowadays I find the 'heroes' often unbearable because they openly care nothing about the law or the rules, disrespecting peoples' rights and even breaking the law itself to 'catch' people, and I cannot help but think that they will never end up actually convicting anyone. Despite Law and Order telling us at the start of every episode for 20 years about the lawyer part being equally important.
Still, some get around it - on Criminal Minds they usually end up killing the suspect instead.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
It's the box-ticking quota approach to the contestants that is so obvious: some young, some straight, some gay, some black, some white, some religious..
I know they have to represent the nation, but it seems to be their primary concern rather than the baking and it's very obvious where their priorities lie: lovely though she is (and she is) Nadiya Hussain seems to have been all over the BBC commenting on everything since she won.
It's just a way of thinking at the BBC that reflects the concerns of its workforce.
I find Nadiya to be extremely dull and I don't care about her background. I'm sure she is a very nice lady, but there is nothing interesting about her.
Why would anyone assume there would be? Being good at baking cakes doesn't mean that anything else you say or do is equally interesting. It's a bit like the desire to ask actors their views on current affairs. They may have something interesting to say or they may not. Whether they do or not is completely unrelated to their acting ability.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I'm always puzzled by errors that writers and producers make in depicting legal processes, when ten minutes' conversation with a solicitor or barrister would put them right.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
I would imagine its the same with any media that deals with our specialist subjects. I am unable to watch any show about the computer industry, especially those that deal with hacking.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I'm always puzzled by errors that writers and producers make in depicting legal processes, when ten minutes' conversation with a solicitor or barrister would put them right.
It depends whether to be correct would rob a situation of the appropriate emotion, or undermine it at least. Usually, I'd say a bit more reality adding to the verisimilitude will help enhance the emotion, so there's plenty of adhering to old cliche when unnecessary.
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
Need to get my wife into that. She loves legal shows and hasn't seen it yet.
There are some good bits of cross-examination in it, though it inevitably focuses on the QC rather than on all the hard work done by the solicitor in getting the evidence which allows the QC to do his/her stuff.
The best bit of cross-examination I have ever seen was ca. 20 years ago in a case about adverse possession. Our barrister was able - in a few questions - to put the main witness for the other side in a position where, whatever answer she gave, it would destroy her case. It was so good that her barrister (now a senior judge) congratulated our QC after the cross-examination and said he would do his damndest in re-examination. But he never got the chance because their case collapsed and they gave in a few hours later. I learnt a lot from how it was done and have never forgotten the lessons.
When you see someone in full mastery of their skills (whatever those skills are) it is something of real beauty.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine. But on the news, in every bloody magazine, on the radio: it's too much. They're just cakes, for god's sake. And our mothers who lived through all the 50's stuff were only too glad to get away from endless bloody baking and cooking and daily shopping and cleaning up afterwards. It's all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
Surely the whole point is that now people, specifically women, are no longer chained to the kitchen, so to speak, having the time to really invest in become skilled in the culinary arts is a much more appealing fantasy, particularly presented in idealised fashion with relatable human stories as accompaniment.
Sure, it's hyped - I don't really recall hearing about it much until the last few years, so it's definitely gotten bigger - but a lot of things get hyped and many are a lot worse than Bake Off and much more likely to have lasting cultural impact.
A programme showing how to create nutritious meals for 5 day in, day out on a budget, every single day for the best part of two decades while being a working mum and without taking up hours of limited free time would be much more realistic and useful, though utterly dull as a programme.
Women still do the bulk of housework even if they work outside the home. It still feels like a chain, unless you're content to live in utter mess. We should start chaining men to the house and give them some Flash bleach with a list of things that need cleaning: the loo, for a start.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
Which of Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood, Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc best give off the multicultural vibe?
It's the box-ticking quota approach to the contestants that is so obvious: some young, some straight, some gay, some black, some white, some religious..
I know they have to represent the nation, but it seems to be their primary concern rather than the baking and it's very obvious where their priorities lie: lovely though she is (and she is) Nadiya Hussain seems to have been all over the BBC commenting on everything since she won.
It's just a way of thinking at the BBC that reflects the concerns of its workforce.
I find Nadiya to be extremely dull and I don't care about her background. I'm sure she is a very nice lady, but there is nothing interesting about her.
Why would anyone assume there would be? Being good at baking cakes doesn't mean that anything else you say or do is equally interesting. It's a bit like the desire to ask actors their views on current affairs. They may have something interesting to say or they may not. Whether they do or not is completely unrelated to their acting ability.
I actually thought the two-part programme on BBC2 following her trip back to her family in Bangladesh was reasonably interesting viewing, in a light entertainment sort of way.
''You mean his opponents need to create some rumours to balance out the suspicion? It's a laughable direction to take. ''
The democrats are like England playing Iceland in the Euros. You can see the rabbit in the headlights looks.
The Republicans are currently walking right into the basket of deplorable snare. Clinton's 'misphrasing' of a line she has been using for weeks but not getting much media notice of sure was 'unfortunate'
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
Need to get my wife into that. She loves legal shows and hasn't seen it yet.
Silk was good also. But I am of an age when I can remember Crown Court at lunchtimes.
''You mean his opponents need to create some rumours to balance out the suspicion? It's a laughable direction to take. ''
The democrats are like England playing Iceland in the Euros. You can see the rabbit in the headlights looks.
The Republicans are currently walking right into the basket of deplorable snare. Clinton's 'misphrasing' of a line she has been using for weeks but not getting much media notice of sure was 'unfortunate'
Just like when people said Leave repeating the Obama back of the queue line was a bad idea or Dave's little Englander line was a bad idea?
There is no trap, Clinton absolutely fucked up by insulting voters. It's worse than Romney's 47% line because these are the voters that used to be the Dems bread and butter before they started playing identity politics.
No, it's not about repeating the line. It's about either repudiating or refusing to repudiate elements of their support.
Hilary has been criticism the voters for weeks. She eventually chose a 'secret' (their were invited reporters there) to add the quantifier half by 'mistake' which got it all over the news.
You have Mike Pence refusing to condem David Duke. Repeatedly. You have polling figures that allow talking heads to quantify exactly what percentage are racists. You have other Republicans down ticket making it clear they do find deplorable people deplorable. The Democrats couldn't have asked for more.
The difference between these comments and the 47% comments is that Romeny was bagging on his own voters by his generalisaion. Hilary was still only focused on the extreme edge of Trump supporters.
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Except that it is reasonable to assumed that the last
Well, we shall see: assuming an election in 2020 on the new boundaries then they still have nearly four years to attempt some kind of recovery.
On the other hand, the yellows were worn down to bedrock support of around 10% by 2011, and have shown no meaningful signs of recovery throughout the years since then. Indeed, for the last couple of years they've actually declined in the polls, and now typically The Lib Dems are now a minor party, set back half-a-century in a single election and struggling desperately to be heard. Nor do I see how any of the factors that contributed to the 2015 rout are likely not to be a factor in 2020. Middle class social democrat voters who felt betrayed by the Coalition show no interest in coming back from Corbyn Labour or the Greens. Ukip are now the repository for protest votes. The Yellow Tory vote went back to the Conservatives out of fear of the creation of a left-wing coalition of the defeated, and they have no reason to change sides again - especially now that the SNP is even stronger, Labour has been captured by the Hard Left and the Lib Dems have also moved leftwards away from them.
I know that the Lib Dems, and the Liberals before them, have shown extraordinary tenacity in surviving for nearly a hundred years since being supplanted by Labour, but you have to wonder whether they're reaching the end of the road at last. If there was going to be a long-term future for a liberal party in a small c-conservative country like ours, then you would have to imagine that it would be a socially liberal, economically centre-right party looking primarily to hold on to the Yellow Tory vote: something a bit like the German FDP. As it is, if there were to be a realignment on the Left involving a formal split of the Labour Party, then one could well imagine the new centre-left party swallowing the Lib Dems whole.
Though paradoxically the yellow Tories can now return to the LDs as there is no chance at all of a Corbyn led left wing coalition, having destroyed SLAB and the softer Left.
And there are bound to be some anti-government ex-Tory votes at the next election, when May's honeymoon will have ended and who knows where we'll be with Brexit by then, and it is hard to see these going to Corbyn
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
I've never watched a full episode, just bits and pieces when switching channels. But I've gone off TV in a big way in the last few years.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine. But on the news, in every bloody magazine, on the radio: it's too much. They're just cakes, for god's sake. And our mothers who lived through all the 50's stuff were only too glad to get away from endless bloody baking and cooking and daily shopping and cleaning up afterwards. It's all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
Surely the whole point is that now people, specifically women, are no longer chained to the kitchen, so to speak, having the time to really invest in become skilled in the culinary arts is a much more appealing fantasy, particularly presented in idealised fashion with relatable human stories as accompaniment.
Sure, it's hyped - I don't really recall hearing about it much until the last few years, so it's definitely gotten bigger - but a lot of things get hyped and many are a lot worse than Bake Off and much more likely to have lasting cultural impact.
A programme showing how to create nutritious meals for 5 day in, day out on a budget, every single day for the best part of two decades while being a working mum and without taking up hours of limited free time would be much more realistic and useful, though utterly dull as a programme.
Women still do the bulk of housework even if they work outside the home. It still feels like a chain, unless you're content to live in utter mess. We should start chaining men to the house and give them some Flash bleach with a list of things that need cleaning: the loo, for a start.
But, but, but Herself always gives me lists of things to do around the house and always has. Not only that when she come home she is quite capable of walking round on an inspection tour to make sure I have done all that I was instructed and that I have done it thoroughly. I might also say that aside from a couple of shortish periods when I have been seriously unwell, Herself has not picked up an iron or cleaned a floor in thirty-odd years (nor, I might say, has she cooked a Sunday lunch).
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
European Commission @EU_Commission President @JunckerEU is preparing to deliver the State of the Union address tomorrow. Tune in at 9am CET #SOTEU
That First Draft in full: "We're fucked...."
Nous sommes foutus perhaps? One assumes English will not be very welcome ( sorry Ireland ), except for the hidden bit where it's the exchange language for the translators as that's presumably one of few ways you can get a practical way to regularly go from Estonian into Greek, or Maltese into Danish etc. they must hate that in Brussels.
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
Need to get my wife into that. She loves legal shows and hasn't seen it yet.
There are some good bits of cross-examination in it, though it inevitably focuses on the QC rather than on all the hard work done by the solicitor in getting the evidence which allows the QC to do his/her stuff.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
My trouble is the politics. With shows like Poldark the BBC seem to be more interested in making points about social justice rather than telling a good history yarn. Victoria on ITV is much better.
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It's like the latest Archers storyline. The story about coercive control is very good, even it is rather distorting the whole programme.
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
I loved Garrow's law. Vexed me that they pulled another batch of it for Call the Midwife instead.
I find legal shows largely unwatchable because they get so much wrong. Kavanagh QC was about the only one which got the courtroom scenes right.
Need to get my wife into that. She loves legal shows and hasn't seen it yet.
Silk was good also. But I am of an age when I can remember Crown Court at lunchtimes.
Silk was quite similar to the same writer's North Square.
But I read the tea leaves differently to you. Since the 2015 general election, the LibDems staged a meaningful recovery in last year's local elections, and in Holyrood. (On this site, there was a lot of serious discussion about whether the LibDems would lose the last of their constituency seats in Holyrood.)
This indicates to me - as do the by-election victories - that the LibDem activist base is beginning to move into gear. This is, of course, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a LibDem recovery.
Now, will they ever get back to a quarter of the vote? I doubt it. But could they get to 12-14% in the polls, and a similar number of seats, in 2020? Right now, I'd reckon that was quite likely.
You make some good points, especially with regard to Holyrood; I'm not sure I was so impressed by the modest advances made in local government, let alone by the dire performance in Wales. Regardless, I'm not optimistic about their chances of making a decent Commons recovery.
Based on the tables provided by Anthony Wells, in addition to their three surviving notional holds in England and Wales there are very few other marginals to exploit: I count Cambridge, Twickenham, Kingston & Surbiton, Eastbourne, Carshalton & Wallington, St Ives, Bermondsey, Sheffield Hallam, Torbay, Leeds NW, Sutton & Cheam and Southport, making just a dozen seats with notional majorities of less than 5,000 to be overturned. If they won all of those, and also held Orkney & Shetland and captured all the available marginals in Scotland (at a guess, no more than about three,) then that would get them up to 20. However, set against that they will only have the advantage of incumbency in a maximum of four of those English seats; none of the factors mitigating against voting Lib Dem that I previously highlighted are likely to have gone away by 2020; and you can only achieve so much with a gang of enthusiastic activists for a party that the vast bulk of the electorate no longer notices or takes particularly seriously.
The Lib Dems will be doing well not to go backwards on seat count come 2020, and it will take them polling comfortably into the teens as you suggested just to do that, based on a uniform vote share increase. To do significantly better, they would need the Conservative vote share to decline significantly from 2015, and/or achieve outsized local swings in a number of predominantly Tory-held constituencies. At this stage, I see no particular reason to suppose that either is likely to happen.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I don't care about it, but I'm certainly not pissed at others enjoying a bit of naff fun.
If others want to enjoy it fine.
Surely the whole point is that now people, specifically women, are no longer chained to the kitchen, so to speak, having the time to really invest in become skilled in the culinary arts is a much more appealing fantasy, particularly presented in idealised fashion with relatable human stories as accompaniment.
Sure, it's hyped - I don't really recall hearing about it much until the last few years, so it's definitely gotten bigger - but a lot of things get hyped and many are a lot worse than Bake Off and much more likely to have lasting cultural impact.
A programme showing how to create nutritious meals for 5 day in, day out on a budget, every single day for the best part of two decades while being a working mum and without taking up hours of limited free time would be much more realistic and useful, though utterly dull as a programme.
Women still do the bulk of housework even if they work outside the home. It still feels like a chain, unless you're content to live in utter mess. We should start chaining men to the house and give them some Flash bleach with a list of things that need cleaning: the loo, for a start.
But, but, but Herself always gives me lists of things to do around the house and always has. Not only that when she come home she is quite capable of walking round on an inspection tour to make sure I have done all that I was instructed and that I have done it thoroughly. I might also say that aside from a couple of shortish periods when I have been seriously unwell, Herself has not picked up an iron or cleaned a floor in thirty-odd years (nor, I might say, has she cooked a Sunday lunch).
So, Mrs. Free, I reject your sexist stereotyping
So with your hipster whiskers, and domestic skills, as well as animal nurturing are you sure you are in the right party?
Mary Berry rumoured to not be part of C4 Bake Off.
Sounding to me more and more like C4 have pulled off a reverse Top Gear here.
I'll doubtless watch it to begin with, but I rather fear that C4 have just killed Bake Off stone dead with their cash. A terrible shame.
The only winners out of all of this will be the newly-enriched production company, and whichever (most likely wholly unsuitable) raft of new presenters they bring in on mega salaries to help to finish it off. I wonder if the bookies will open a market on this - and if so, what odds they'd give me on Jamie Oliver and Nadiya as the new judges, with Jimmy Carr presenting...?
Public Policy Polling Our sample was 33% reporters and the media, 33% NYC homeless, 33% Chicago gangbangers, and 1% lizard people https://t.co/LCdZJahNct
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
It also what's not in articles like that, because they only think of the issue from an EU-centric point of view.
Mrs Sandpit is a non-EU citizen, her chances of getting a British visa go up substantially because of Brexit.
Hmmm... I suspect that, given non-EU immigration has been running at twice the government's target for TOTAL immigration, that there will be more restrictions on non-EU immigration rather than less.
Only if you view Prime Minister May's government as being obsessive in the desire to meet the target at all cost and the prior government with Home Secretary May as having no interest in it at all.
Net migration, not total migration. Big difference.
Remember, any "progress" on the migration target could be undone by decreased emigration.
Comments
Yes, I know it's a cliché but there's truth in it: in the public sector you claim the only thing that can be cut is something very popular, unless you get more money, or you cut what you can get away with cutting, and not what should be cut.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan has current majority of 4,914 in Berwick.
New seat - Berwick & Ashington - Notional LABOUR majority 1,214
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/775736099687665664
I haven't seen Bake Off (ever) and it seems to be very popular but I think the BBC like it for its showcasing of multiculturalism rather than the baking.
It was the sort of attitude that used to exist when there was a maximum wage in football and players would spend their whole careers at the same club.
You can say wouldn't that be nice today, but the realities of the world aren't like that.
If the Holyrood elections are a good guide (and they were for 2015), the LDs are in with a good shout of picking up two Scottish seats from the SNP.
More seriously, the reduction in the number of seats was always going to hit smaller parties hardest.
There are unanswered questions.
Yes, I know the arguments about budget and the 'availability' of popular stars with 'busy diaries'.
I don't buy it.
European Commission @EU_Commission
President @JunckerEU is preparing to deliver the State of the Union address tomorrow. Tune in at 9am CET #SOTEU
50% of the electorate whites without degrees? America is only 70% white so that is bs as about 47% of white people have degrees in the u.s so white people without degrees is only 37% of the electorate, they would have to have a turnout differential of 13 percentage points! Not going to happen!
This shows how rubbish Clinton is as even though Trump is chasing just over a third of the US electorate he is close to her in vote share.
"Don't worry, Bake Off can't actually leave the BBC till Theresa May has triggered Article 50..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/matt-cartoons-september-2016/
But despite all their research they got the legal side all wrong: the bits with the lawyer were truly appalling and the trial was so badly done it was embarrassing. The hour long special with the jury was a poor man's (and badly executed) version of Twelve Angry Men. It would have been more true to life and dramatic if they had focused on those waiting for the verdict. There is quite enough dramatic tension in that.
Sure, it's hyped - I don't really recall hearing about it much until the last few years, so it's definitely gotten bigger - but a lot of things get hyped and many are a lot worse than Bake Off and much more likely to have lasting cultural impact.
The democrats are like England playing Iceland in the Euros. You can see the rabbit in the headlights looks.
I know they have to represent the nation, but it seems to be their primary concern rather than the baking and it's very obvious where their priorities lie: lovely though she is (and she is) Nadiya Hussain seems to have been all over the BBC commenting on everything since she won.
It's just a way of thinking at the BBC that reflects the concerns of its workforce.
On the other hand, the yellows were worn down to bedrock support of around 10% by 2011, and have shown no meaningful signs of recovery throughout the years since then. Indeed, for the last couple of years they've actually declined in the polls, and now typically score more like 8% (about the same as the actual vote share they achieved in the 2015 GE.)
The Lib Dems are now a minor party, set back half-a-century in a single election and struggling desperately to be heard. Nor do I see how any of the factors that contributed to the 2015 rout are likely not to be a factor in 2020. Middle class social democrat voters who felt betrayed by the Coalition show no interest in coming back from Corbyn Labour or the Greens. Ukip are now the repository for protest votes. The Yellow Tory vote went back to the Conservatives out of fear of the creation of a left-wing coalition of the defeated, and they have no reason to change sides again - especially now that the SNP is even stronger, Labour has been captured by the Hard Left and the Lib Dems have also moved leftwards away from them.
I know that the Lib Dems, and the Liberals before them, have shown extraordinary tenacity in surviving for nearly a hundred years since being supplanted by Labour, but you have to wonder whether they're reaching the end of the road at last. If there was going to be a long-term future for a liberal party in a small c-conservative country like ours, then you would have to imagine that it would be a socially liberal, economically centre-right party looking primarily to hold on to the Yellow Tory vote: something a bit like the German FDP. As it is, if there were to be a realignment on the Left involving a formal split of the Labour Party, then one could well imagine the new centre-left party swallowing the Lib Dems whole.
Women still do the bulk of housework even if they work outside the home. It still feels like a chain, unless you're content to live in utter mess. We should start chaining men to the house and give them some Flash bleach with a list of things that need cleaning: the loo, for a start.
The big issue is that if any one of us really decided to think we'd run away from where we are like mad things. At some point someone will capture all of that and do something astonishing. A sort of super-kennedy, we choose to do these things because they are hard.
I'm not even sure I prefer 'hard' (like death etc) to bake-off.
Perhaps this is why we haven't found inteligent life - they've all just gently bake-offed themselves away.
But too often it doesn't.
Amazon and HBO pump out terrific show after show year after year with very few bloopers.
There are, however, some fantastic documentaries you can get on iPlayer and I watch those on my way into work. "The Joys of the Guitar Riff" is my current choice.
The writing/authorship tradition of British and American telly is completely different.
There is no trap, Clinton absolutely fucked up by insulting voters. It's worse than Romney's 47% line because these are the voters that used to be the Dems bread and butter before they started playing identity politics.
But I read the tea leaves differently to you. Since the 2015 general election, the LibDems staged a meaningful recovery in last year's local elections, and in Holyrood. (On this site, there was a lot of serious discussion about whether the LibDems would lose the last of their constituency seats in Holyrood.)
This indicates to me - as do the by-election victories - that the LibDem activist base is beginning to move into gear. This is, of course, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a LibDem recovery.
Now, will they ever get back to a quarter of the vote? I doubt it. But could they get to 12-14% in the polls, and a similar number of seats, in 2020? Right now, I'd reckon that was quite likely.
Interesting proposals in my part of East London from the Boundary Commission. East Ham remains largely intact but West Ham disappears with five of the western Newham wards heading to the new Bow & Canning Town seat while the northern Wards which were part of Ilford South go to the new Forest Gate & Loxford seat.
Not too much for Labour to be worried about in all honesty and the fact remains East Ham remains a large constituency numerically.
As Mark S wisely reminds us, what we see now and what we finally get may look very different.
Sounding to me more and more like C4 have pulled off a reverse Top Gear here.
It creates some weird effects, greater variety means there is a greater chance than normal that the BBC will find a hit.
But it limits the time given to any specific show or series no matter how successful they are, so it stifles development of successful shows and series.
The characters may get too old to play, the audience may forget about it by the next season.
The only exception to the BBC rule was the 5th Series of Allo Allo, with 26 episodes.
Still, some get around it - on Criminal Minds they usually end up killing the suspect instead.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/boundary-reviews/
The best bit of cross-examination I have ever seen was ca. 20 years ago in a case about adverse possession. Our barrister was able - in a few questions - to put the main witness for the other side in a position where, whatever answer she gave, it would destroy her case. It was so good that her barrister (now a senior judge) congratulated our QC after the cross-examination and said he would do his damndest in re-examination. But he never got the chance because their case collapsed and they gave in a few hours later. I learnt a lot from how it was done and have never forgotten the lessons.
When you see someone in full mastery of their skills (whatever those skills are) it is something of real beauty.
You lose.
No, it's not about repeating the line. It's about either repudiating or refusing to repudiate elements of their support.
Hilary has been criticism the voters for weeks. She eventually chose a 'secret' (their were invited reporters there) to add the quantifier half by 'mistake' which got it all over the news.
You have Mike Pence refusing to condem David Duke. Repeatedly. You have polling figures that allow talking heads to quantify exactly what percentage are racists. You have other Republicans down ticket making it clear they do find deplorable people deplorable. The Democrats couldn't have asked for more.
The difference between these comments and the 47% comments is that Romeny was bagging on his own voters by his generalisaion. Hilary was still only focused on the extreme edge of Trump supporters.
So, Mrs. Free, I reject your sexist stereotyping
She is a solicitor.
Based on the tables provided by Anthony Wells, in addition to their three surviving notional holds in England and Wales there are very few other marginals to exploit: I count Cambridge, Twickenham, Kingston & Surbiton, Eastbourne, Carshalton & Wallington, St Ives, Bermondsey, Sheffield Hallam, Torbay, Leeds NW, Sutton & Cheam and Southport, making just a dozen seats with notional majorities of less than 5,000 to be overturned. If they won all of those, and also held Orkney & Shetland and captured all the available marginals in Scotland (at a guess, no more than about three,) then that would get them up to 20. However, set against that they will only have the advantage of incumbency in a maximum of four of those English seats; none of the factors mitigating against voting Lib Dem that I previously highlighted are likely to have gone away by 2020; and you can only achieve so much with a gang of enthusiastic activists for a party that the vast bulk of the electorate no longer notices or takes particularly seriously.
The Lib Dems will be doing well not to go backwards on seat count come 2020, and it will take them polling comfortably into the teens as you suggested just to do that, based on a uniform vote share increase. To do significantly better, they would need the Conservative vote share to decline significantly from 2015, and/or achieve outsized local swings in a number of predominantly Tory-held constituencies. At this stage, I see no particular reason to suppose that either is likely to happen.
Let your inner LD breath free!
The only winners out of all of this will be the newly-enriched production company, and whichever (most likely wholly unsuitable) raft of new presenters they bring in on mega salaries to help to finish it off. I wonder if the bookies will open a market on this - and if so, what odds they'd give me on Jamie Oliver and Nadiya as the new judges, with Jimmy Carr presenting...?
Public Policy Polling
Our sample was 33% reporters and the media, 33% NYC homeless, 33% Chicago gangbangers, and 1% lizard people https://t.co/LCdZJahNct
Remember, any "progress" on the migration target could be undone by decreased emigration.
new thread