I hate to break in to [geordie accent]"Day 4,324 in the Brexiteers Banging On Haaaaarse"[/geordie accent], but I am really interested in the event mentioned in the article. Unfortunately I cannot attend due to work committments. If anybody does go can you tell me the details? Otherwise I'll keep a look out to see if they post the slides online or put it on Youtube
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Did you see the party political broadcast I posted yesterday that Major gave just before the 97 election? If you listen to his words and then look at the result of the election, it's difficult not to conclude that the people who have undermined democracy have been the Eurosceptics.
Blair promised a referendum on the Constitution. The French and the Dutch voted against it. It was effectively renamed the Lisbon Treaty and hey presto no referendum. Instead we got Peter Hain on the TV telling us it was a "tidying up exercise". The dripping condescension of that phrase seared my soul, and put the EU on notice for me. And it played into the feeling that June 23rd was a once in a lifetime chance because the EU and its outriders don't like people voting "no".
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Did you see the party political broadcast I posted yesterday that Major gave just before the 97 election? If you listen to his words and then look at the result of the election, it's difficult not to conclude that the people who have undermined democracy have been the Eurosceptics.
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Did you see the party political broadcast I posted yesterday that Major gave just before the 97 election? If you listen to his words and then look at the result of the election, it's difficult not to conclude that the people who have undermined democracy have been the Eurosceptics.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
Why should licence fee payers be paying for ratings?
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.
Because the BBC is in the marketplace for eyeballs just like anyone else. Trying to say that shouldn't be so is just silly.
That you don't like the license fee and/or a state funded broadcaster is a different argument.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
Why should licence fee payers be paying for ratings?
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.
Because the BBC is in the marketplace for eyeballs just like anyone else. Trying to say that shouldn't be so is just silly.
That you don't like the license fee and/or a state funded broadcaster is a different argument.
No it is not in the marketplace for eyeballs. The fee does not go up or down depending upon how many or how few eyeballs watch BBC TV or listen to BBC Radio. The BBC is there to provide a fee-based service at punishment of imprisonment even if the consumer is going elsewhere with their eyeballs.
The marketplace for eyeballs is what commercial TV is for.
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Did you see the party political broadcast I posted yesterday that Major gave just before the 97 election? If you listen to his words and then look at the result of the election, it's difficult not to conclude that the people who have undermined democracy have been the Eurosceptics.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
Why should licence fee payers be paying for ratings?
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.
If ratings were lower you would be calling for the BBC to be shut down because no one watched it.
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Did you see the party political broadcast I posted yesterday that Major gave just before the 97 election? If you listen to his words and then look at the result of the election, it's difficult not to conclude that the people who have undermined democracy have been the Eurosceptics.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
Why should licence fee payers be paying for ratings?
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.
Because the BBC is in the marketplace for eyeballs just like anyone else. Trying to say that shouldn't be so is just silly.
That you don't like the license fee and/or a state funded broadcaster is a different argument.
No it is not in the marketplace for eyeballs. The fee does not go up or down depending upon how many or how few eyeballs watch BBC TV or listen to BBC Radio. The BBC is there to provide a fee-based service at punishment of imprisonment even if the consumer is going elsewhere with their eyeballs.
The marketplace for eyeballs is what commercial TV is for.
An argument used by every opponent of public service TV.
As not_on_fire points out, the argument of low ratings as a reason for cutting funding is the next tactic.
As I said, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether or not the state should fund a television service. Attempting to cripple that service as a way of winning the argument isn't legitimate, IMO.
Why isn't there enough affordable housing in Chelsea? Because it's fecking Chelsea!!!
I am somewhat stunned today, having experienced a sunny day in Manchester.
Marred by a 45 minute delay on the train back to Leeds. However, as we were delayed in the platform at Stalybridge, passengers were advised that they had time to go for a pint at the pub on the station and a fag in the carpark! A few folk returned with a carry-out.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
Why should licence fee payers be paying for ratings?
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.
If ratings were lower you would be calling for the BBC to be shut down because no one watched it.
If ratings are only able to be kept high because licence fee payers money is being used to chase ratings then it should be shut down.
However I grew up in Australia where the BBC's sister channel the ABC is taxpayer funded. It doesn't chase ratings, it has the lowest ratings of all the mainstream channels as a result. It provides instead a service that the taxpayers have deemed useful and not commercial.
There are plenty of stations out there to provide commercial ratings chasers. There is only one that is there to provide a service that we pay for whether we watch it or not.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
Why should licence fee payers be paying for ratings?
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.
Because the BBC is in the marketplace for eyeballs just like anyone else. Trying to say that shouldn't be so is just silly.
That you don't like the license fee and/or a state funded broadcaster is a different argument.
No it is not in the marketplace for eyeballs. The fee does not go up or down depending upon how many or how few eyeballs watch BBC TV or listen to BBC Radio. The BBC is there to provide a fee-based service at punishment of imprisonment even if the consumer is going elsewhere with their eyeballs.
The marketplace for eyeballs is what commercial TV is for.
An argument used by every opponent of public service TV.
As not_on_fire points out, the argument of low ratings as a reason for cutting funding is the next tactic.
As I said, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether or not the state should fund a television service. Attempting to cripple that service as a way of winning the argument isn't legitimate, IMO.
I didn't speak against public service TV. I spoke in FAVOUR of public service TV actually.
The objective I have said repeatedly should be SERVICE and not ratings. That is what the ABC does in Australia, it is what NPR and PBS do in America. If the only argument is that "we need this for the ratings" then that is not SERVICE, that is commercialisation.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
That someone ambitious and intelligent* enough to make it to the front bench of parliament has no qualifications does show a failure of schooling rather than of the individual. It may well better equip her to deal with the problems within the education system.
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
I think you're probably right. No one should be a slave to the English language which is changing all the time. The only thing I would say is that some of the least educated people through native wit can make their point persuasively. She isn't one of them.
pah
as our leading autocoprophagist you would say that
Public service should be about helping and protecting those in need and vulnerable children are some of the neediest around. And we failed them. It is utterly shameful. Those who spoke up and tried to help are real heroes.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
That someone ambitious and intelligent* enough to make it to the front bench of parliament has no qualifications does show a failure of schooling rather than of the individual. It may well better equip her to deal with the problems within the education system.
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
I think you're probably right. No one should be a slave to the English language which is changing all the time. The only thing I would say is that some of the least educated people through native wit can make their point persuasively. She isn't one of them.
pah
as our leading autocoprophagist you would say that
Is that a Tory dating site?
More somewhere you'd go when down in the dumps, so to speak.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
That someone ambitious and intelligent* enough to make it to the front bench of parliament has no qualifications does show a failure of schooling rather than of the individual. It may well better equip her to deal with the problems within the education system.
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
I think you're probably right. No one should be a slave to the English language which is changing all the time. The only thing I would say is that some of the least educated people through native wit can make their point persuasively. She isn't one of them.
pah
as our leading autocoprophagist you would say that
Is that a Tory dating site?
I've just checked. It's someone who eats their own feces. You're not becoming a Lib Dem are you?
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
Yep. Hard Brexit is nailed on as the default option.
If only someone in our government would start some preparations.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
Yep. Hard Brexit is nailed on as the default option.
If only someone in our government would start some preparations.
May is probably making the appropriate preparations. Who to fire and when? How to pitch the speech announcing a second referendum?
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a second, previously undisclosed meeting at the G20 summit earlier this month in Germany, a White House official said on Tuesday.
The two leaders held a two-hour meeting on July 7 in which Trump later said Putin denied allegations that he directed efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The undisclosed chat took place during a G20 dinner for world leaders. Trump left his seat to sit next to Putin, the Washington Post reported. Putin had a translator with him, while Trump was alone.
It's sign of the febrile times we are enduring when JRM is actually a live contender for leader of the Horde. If he's the answer the question must have been: "Which living parliamentarian most resembles Gervase Crouchback?"
CNN ejaculating again over all this latest Russia news. I actually wonder if they would be better putting all the pieces together first as it plays into Trumps hands being able to claim cnn aren't objective.
I don't see the evidence of that. If there are two newsreaders, one male and one female, should they be paid the same? Not necessarily.
TV is about popularity and connecting with the audience, in order to get people to watch your program. If the male newsreader is more popular with the audience, then they have greater value and should be paid more.
If the BBC are paying female presenters with the same audience favourability less than men, this is improper. But maybe the facts are that two-thirds of BBC presenters are male because they are better received by the market. It is not the job of the BBC to enforce ethnic quotas - simply to pick the best person for the job which is largely dependent on audience feedback. We need these facts before we can assess if there is a problem.
UK playing this well. Ask the EU to justify their legal position line by line, without revealing your own hand, then decide what position you want to take. EU frustration is no doubt that they are not doing well when subject to a forensic analysis of their justifications, hence the endless leaks.
The EU asked for an exit bill - up to them to justify it. UK totally correct to refuse to put a position in at this time.
UK playing this well. Ask the EU to justify their legal position line by line, without revealing your own hand, then decide what position you want to take. EU frustration is no doubt that they are not doing well when subject to a forensic analysis of their justifications, hence the endless leaks.
The EU asked for an exit bill - up to them to justify it. UK totally correct to refuse to put a position in at this time.
And what will you achieve from this ultimately ? If you are happy with WTO, then why bother ? Why not go for it right now ? Bring the multiple car crash forward.
It is a negotiation. You need to lower the expectations of your opponent to get a better deal.
This is no different than any other negotiation - working out whether what you get is worth what you pay. Remainers find it easy to say that Brexit without a deal will be the end of the World so we should pay anything, just so that they can suggest we should capitulate on everything.
In fact, no deal is not as optimal as a deal but there needs to be an assessment of value. In my view, a mutual tariff-free deal with no access to EU services is worse than WTO rules, but others may have different assessments. However, there is no trade deal that is actually worth 80 billion, or anything like it. WTO may be sub optimal, but not by anything like that amount.
So, if you actually want a deal rather than simply British capitulation, it is certainly worth supporting the UK side trying to moderate the unrealistic expectations of the EU side. That is what Davis is doing.
UK playing this well. Ask the EU to justify their legal position line by line, without revealing your own hand, then decide what position you want to take. EU frustration is no doubt that they are not doing well when subject to a forensic analysis of their justifications, hence the endless leaks.
The EU asked for an exit bill - up to them to justify it. UK totally correct to refuse to put a position in at this time.
And what will you achieve from this ultimately ? If you are happy with WTO, then why bother ? Why not go for it right now ? Bring the multiple car crash forward.
UK playing this well. Ask the EU to justify their legal position line by line, without revealing your own hand, then decide what position you want to take. EU frustration is no doubt that they are not doing well when subject to a forensic analysis of their justifications, hence the endless leaks.
The EU asked for an exit bill - up to them to justify it. UK totally correct to refuse to put a position in at this time.
And what will you achieve from this ultimately ? If you are happy with WTO, then why bother ? Why not go for it right now ? Bring the multiple car crash forward.
The EU has made it abundantly clear they want money from us, its their number one concern.
The UK needs to make it abundantly clear that we want a trade deal from them and without one agreed and ratified in full then they don't get a single cent in further payments after we leave.
That will concentrate minds on both sides. Currently the EU seems to think they can string us along on a trade deal and only agree an exit bill. But Article 50 is crystal clear, we are out whether we pay a bill or not. So no trade, no bill. Simples.
Comments
Trying to say that shouldn't be so is just silly.
That you don't like the license fee and/or a state funded broadcaster is a different argument.
The marketplace for eyeballs is what commercial TV is for.
The French, the Dutch, the Irish have voted "no", all to no avail, such is the contempt for anybody having the temerity not to back "the Project".
whitesexist when it comes to talent pay.As not_on_fire points out, the argument of low ratings as a reason for cutting funding is the next tactic.
As I said, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether or not the state should fund a television service. Attempting to cripple that service as a way of winning the argument isn't legitimate, IMO.
I am somewhat stunned today, having experienced a sunny day in Manchester.
Marred by a 45 minute delay on the train back to Leeds. However, as we were delayed in the platform at Stalybridge, passengers were advised that they had time to go for a pint at the pub on the station and a fag in the carpark! A few folk returned with a carry-out.
However I grew up in Australia where the BBC's sister channel the ABC is taxpayer funded. It doesn't chase ratings, it has the lowest ratings of all the mainstream channels as a result. It provides instead a service that the taxpayers have deemed useful and not commercial.
There are plenty of stations out there to provide commercial ratings chasers. There is only one that is there to provide a service that we pay for whether we watch it or not.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/disdainful-of-h-1bs-trump-expands-a-different-foreign-worker-visa/
The objective I have said repeatedly should be SERVICE and not ratings. That is what the ABC does in Australia, it is what NPR and PBS do in America. If the only argument is that "we need this for the ratings" then that is not SERVICE, that is commercialisation.
But I have just finished seeing this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08xdh9r - The Betrayed Girls - about the children abused in Rochdale.
Harrowing - but essential - viewing.
Public service should be about helping and protecting those in need and vulnerable children are some of the neediest around. And we failed them. It is utterly shameful. Those who spoke up and tried to help are real heroes.
If only someone in our government would start some preparations.
The two leaders held a two-hour meeting on July 7 in which Trump later said Putin denied allegations that he directed efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The undisclosed chat took place during a G20 dinner for world leaders. Trump left his seat to sit next to Putin, the Washington Post reported. Putin had a translator with him, while Trump was alone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/conservative-mps-fear-students-collected-friends-polling-cards/
TV is about popularity and connecting with the audience, in order to get people to watch your program. If the male newsreader is more popular with the audience, then they have greater value and should be paid more.
If the BBC are paying female presenters with the same audience favourability less than men, this is improper. But maybe the facts are that two-thirds of BBC presenters are male because they are better received by the market. It is not the job of the BBC to enforce ethnic quotas - simply to pick the best person for the job which is largely dependent on audience feedback. We need these facts before we can assess if there is a problem.
The EU asked for an exit bill - up to them to justify it. UK totally correct to refuse to put a position in at this time.
This is no different than any other negotiation - working out whether what you get is worth what you pay. Remainers find it easy to say that Brexit without a deal will be the end of the World so we should pay anything, just so that they can suggest we should capitulate on everything.
In fact, no deal is not as optimal as a deal but there needs to be an assessment of value. In my view, a mutual tariff-free deal with no access to EU services is worse than WTO rules, but others may have different assessments. However, there is no trade deal that is actually worth 80 billion, or anything like it. WTO may be sub optimal, but not by anything like that amount.
So, if you actually want a deal rather than simply British capitulation, it is certainly worth supporting the UK side trying to moderate the unrealistic expectations of the EU side. That is what Davis is doing.
The UK needs to make it abundantly clear that we want a trade deal from them and without one agreed and ratified in full then they don't get a single cent in further payments after we leave.
That will concentrate minds on both sides. Currently the EU seems to think they can string us along on a trade deal and only agree an exit bill. But Article 50 is crystal clear, we are out whether we pay a bill or not. So no trade, no bill. Simples.