From my memory of reading it this morning, the only change in the insertion of -
and no one is suggesting that he didn't already support the EU before it started paying him
Depressing what someone calls the lawyers in over that sort of thing. You can't even point out conflicts of interest without someone throwing a hissy fit and threatening expensive litigation if you don't make clear that you believe they are beyond the petty human plane of being subject to the conflict of interest.
The mindset at the BBC is quite manifestly going to be different to other broadcasters because it is not answerable to viewers, advertisers, sponsors or subscribers.
Looks the same to me - tho as some in the comments point out Hannan has linked to articles not written by Portes as support for his 'Portes supports the EU' theme.....Portes has complained to the PCC......
Did Marr say liberal-left bias? I am pretty sure he didn't. He said liberal and urban. As you know Richard, you can be liberal without being on the left. I'd have thought that is exactly what the entire leadership of the Conservative party now is. So are you, aren't you?
You're right, I was not being sufficiently precise. He said " 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'
I think that is probably right, but of course the practical effect of that is party-political. For example, the BBC is always much keener to tell us about the effect of a policy on the recipients of government spending than about the taxpayers who have to stump up the cash, and invariably sneers at any suggestion that immigration might be too high.
The mindset at the BBC is quite manifestly going to be different to other broadcasters because it is not answerable to viewers, advertisers, sponsors or subscribers.
It is not answerable to anybody.
Should broadcasters trim their political and/or news output to suit advertisers and sponsors?
On Topic: "very few CON voters from last time have moved into the LAB camp."
In order to take a brief look at how this might have varied over this Parliament, I looked at Table 2 of the four October ICM Guardian polls since the general election.
These are just four polls, but I think one could understate the importance of Con->Lab switchers. Remember, these people are worth double compared to LD-Lab or Con-UKIP switchers in the electoral arithmetic.
They also look like they are more likely to change their mind than the Lib Dem -> Labour switchers, who look relatively solid.
Good data. Mike should consider a thread on this one.
I don't think any serious commentator can doubt there is an element of cultural, social and political bias in the BBC's news and current affairs reporting, nor that this is manifestly not a good thing. Many otherwise fine posters on PB demean themselves by talking of PBTory hysteria whenever this topic comes up. However, I think both the seriousness of the bias and its impact on the political climate is overstated.
The bias manifests itself mainly in terms of the extent of coverage given to "bad news" stories in contrast to "good news" equivalents, and in terms of the lengths the BBC goes to to contextualise or provide balance to "good news" stories in contrast to its reliance on Government spokespeople to contextualise bad news. So, for example, acres of coverage was given to the double dip that wasn't, with the only balance taking the form of Government spokemen having a brief right to reply. By contrast the emergence of data indicating a strengthening recovery was dealt with much more briefly, and then balanced out by Labour's attack line on cost of living and some human interest pieces about people still struggling.
Also the British people often seem impervious to the line they are given. Welfare reform, for example, has remained remarkably popular, despite the BBC's generally negative line on it.
Finally, the Conservatives do themselves no favours by discussing the need to address bias alongside the broader issue of the future of the licence fee. Few things chill the blood like the prospect of the Government of the day using control of funding as a lever in a discussion about editorial line.
What is (sadly) missing from the modern British political scene is an august body of essentially neutral "wise men" (who could of course be female) with the power and capacity to address matters like BBC reform, MPs salaries and expenses and constituency boundaries, without partisanship or undue influence from elected politicians. Every democrat in the coutry should be appalled by the bias in constituency boundaries; but many rejoice in it.
Every time I watch BBC, it's a bloody Tory on the screen: Joanna Gosling, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson.........
I don't think any serious commentator can doubt there is an element of cultural, social and political bias in the BBC's news and current affairs reporting, nor that this is manifestly not a good thing. Many otherwise fine posters on PB demean themselves by talking of PBTory hysteria whenever this topic comes up. However, I think both the seriousness of the bias and its impact on the political climate is overstated.
The bias manifests itself mainly in terms of the extent of coverage given to "bad news" stories in contrast to "good news" equivalents, and in terms of the lengths the BBC goes to to contextualise or provide balance to "good news" stories in contrast to its reliance on Government spokespeople to contextualise bad news. So, for example, acres of coverage was given to the double dip that wasn't, with the only balance taking the form of Government spokemen having a brief right to reply. By contrast the emergence of data indicating a strengthening recovery was dealt with much more briefly, and then balanced out by Labour's attack line on cost of living and some human interest pieces about people still struggling.
Also the British people often seem impervious to the line they are given. Welfare reform, for example, has remained remarkably popular, despite the BBC's generally negative line on it.
Finally, the Conservatives do themselves no favours by discussing the need to address bias alongside the broader issue of the future of the licence fee. Few things chill the blood like the prospect of the Government of the day using control of funding as a lever in a discussion about editorial line.
What is (sadly) missing from the modern British political scene is an august body of essentially neutral "wise men" (who could of course be female) with the power and capacity to address matters like BBC reform, MPs salaries and expenses and constituency boundaries, without partisanship or undue influence from elected politicians. Every democrat in the coutry should be appalled by the bias in constituency boundaries; but many rejoice in it.
Every time I watch BBC, it's a bloody Tory on the screen: Joanna Gosling, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson.........
From my memory of reading it this morning, the only change in the insertion of -
and no one is suggesting that he didn't already support the EU before it started paying him
I remember that from this morning......I think Portes complaint is that 'EU membership' is a political issue & NIESR don't take political positions.....
Did Marr say liberal-left bias? I am pretty sure he didn't. He said liberal and urban. As you know Richard, you can be liberal without being on the left. I'd have thought that is exactly what the entire leadership of the Conservative party now is. So are you, aren't you?
You're right, I was not being sufficiently precise. He said " 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'
I think that is probably right, but of course the practical effect of that is party-political. For example, the BBC is always much keener to tell us about the effect of a policy on the recipients of government spending than about the taxpayers who have to stump up the cash, and invariably sneers at any suggestion that immigration might be too high.
Hmmm - not sure about that at all. The Tory party leadership is pro gay marriage, pro-green, avowedly anti-racist and anti-sexist and so on. They are the very definition of urban liberals. As for cuts, Labour has complained about the way the BBC calls them savings:
Should broadcasters trim their political and/or news output to suit advertisers and sponsors?
No but they must make programmes people want to watch. And they must trim all coverage to the prevailing economic circumstances, given revenues often fall through the floor during recessions.
"Unite and the frightened Scottish politicians they sponsor won’t be coming clean anytime soon. The largest question of all, though, is for Labour. Unite has betrayed thousands of Falkirk workers by putting juvenille Cuban flags and empty ideological rhetoric before them. Can Labour have the courage to confront Unite’s leadership now? Or are too many MPs and MSPs in just too deep?
You could argue that the bias in the BBC has been one of the factors which has forced the Conservatives to shift in the direction you identify. Now, as it happens, and as you rightly say, that was a move closer to my personal views. However, I don't think it is right for a state broadcaster, with a massive reach and a huge historic accumulation of public trust, to be influencing the debate in that or indeed in any way.
"Unite and the frightened Scottish politicians they sponsor won’t be coming clean anytime soon. The largest question of all, though, is for Labour. Unite has betrayed thousands of Falkirk workers by putting juvenille Cuban flags and empty ideological rhetoric before them. Can Labour have the courage to confront Unite’s leadership now? Or are too many MPs and MSPs in just too deep?
I'm not sure that a committee of the wise and good is the solution. We have far too many such arrangements and they are awful. Perhaps the printed press would be a good source of overseers - a random journalist from each of the major papers chosen every four years.
I don't think any serious commentator can doubt there is an element of cultural, social and political bias in the BBC's news and current affairs reporting, nor that this is manifestly not a good thing. Many otherwise fine posters on PB demean themselves by talking of PBTory hysteria whenever this topic comes up. However, I think both the seriousness of the bias and its impact on the political climate is overstated.
However, this is to be expected, because as a leading part of the media the BBC has a duty to hold the Government to account. Doubtless all governments feel they get a rough ride from the BBC - certainly Blair and Brown both felt they did from time to time - and the alternative (state media actively making the case for the Government or not providing sufficient challenge) is on balance worse.
Also the British people often seem impervious to the line they are given. Welfare reform, for example, has remained remarkably popular, despite the BBC's generally negative line on it.
Finally, the Conservatives do themselves no favours by discussing the need to address bias alongside the broader issue of the future of the licence fee. Few things chill the blood like the prospect of the Government of the day using control of funding as a lever in a discussion about editorial line.
What is (sadly) missing from the modern British political scene is an august body of essentially neutral "wise men" (who could of course be female) with the power and capacity to address matters like BBC reform, MPs salaries and expenses and constituency boundaries, without partisanship or undue influence from elected politicians. Every democrat in the coutry should be appalled by the bias in constituency boundaries; but many rejoice in it.
Then comes the question of what is neutral, which is in itself a political decision and the key to the whole thing.
There is of course a difference between objectivity and balance (indeed some would argue they're usually at odds), and that is at the crux of the issue.
The easiest way to end up in electoral oblivion is to attack the BBC. Getting rid of it is a fantasy that is the preserve of a few old white men who post on "libertarian" message boards.
The easiest way to end up in electoral oblivion is to attack the BBC. Getting rid of it is a fantasy that is the preserve of a few old white men who post on "libertarian" message boards.
So so distant from the reality of the public.
I'm not sure anyone is actually suggesting getting rid of it. Set it free.
The easiest way to end up in electoral oblivion is to attack the BBC. Getting rid of it is a fantasy that is the preserve of a few old white men who post on "libertarian" message boards.
So so distant from the reality of the public.
Nowt wrong with change. It needs change and other media needs it to change.
Leaving aside questions of bias, I thought the BBC's coverage of the storm this morning was very poor. Most people would have been concerned about getting to work. However rather than reports with real factual information, perhaps studio-based, all we got was colour pieces - reporters getting wet by Dover docks, or standing in a deserted railway station. They could tell us nothing. A sensible idea might have been to extend the regional travel slots and again give us real facts and figures - nope.
I find it slightly odd that some people on the left tend to be much more conservative when it comes to some institutions that the actual Conservatives. Some seem to think that both the BBC and the NHS exist in a 1950s timewarp, and the structures set up decades ago are a fair fit for the world we live in now, or will live in during future decades.
The BBC is going to face tremendous pressures from new technology, and I simply cannot see how the current licence fee model will work. Looking online, few other people do, either.
Now I've mentioned the NHS, BBC and change in the same post, I'm off to read a book. ;-)
The BBC is going to face tremendous pressures from new technology, and I simply cannot see how the current licence fee model will work. Looking online, few other people do, either.
Indeed.
Earlier on when some people were saying that BBC drama is a bit rubbish, the predictable response from BBC fans was "that it's better than ITV". But the BBC isn't competing against just ITV, or even ITV and Sky. The BBC is up against Netflix, and Itunes, Amazon, and HBO might launch over here soon, and anything people can pirate. i.e. Everything.
And that's only TV, a form of distraction that is in itself in competion with all the other types of online entertainment, from Spotify to Facebook.
The license fee and the BBC seems out of date to me, but to people half my age it must be incomprehensible that we are taxed to provide services and programming they barely use.
Maybe the BBC will be able to cajole our politicians into giving it one more round of license fee funding, but I'd be surpirsed if it gets one after that.
Well, we've had Labour above 40% before and they have made the political weather in recent weeks with Cameron all over the place, really, so it would not be a surprise.
If the Tories were equal or in the lead, that would be a surprise. But for all the froth Labour have been consistently in the lead for months and months now so it's really only the size of it which is at issue, no?
Will it be the Grangemouth/Unite dispute, the continuing improvement in the economy, Miliband's PMQ's/Energy strategy or Ed Miliband the conman that has impacted on and moved opinion up or down?
I'm not sure that a committee of the wise and good is the solution. We have far too many such arrangements and they are awful. Perhaps the printed press would be a good source of overseers - a random journalist from each of the major papers chosen every four years.
Thanks Omnium. I quite agree that we don't need a new committee - I was referring to existing structures like the House of Lords, which I fear has become too politicised to play a meaningful role in the matters to which I referred but which, if properly constituted, would be better placed than the Commons to oversee such matters.
Corporeal, I think you nailed it with your comment about the distinction - and often conflict - between balance and objectivity. I grumble about the BBC as much as the next man but I think on the whole they do a pretty reasonable job of conveying the main viewpoints (albeit I suspect passionate supporters of minority parties would disagree). However, that doesn't mean the BBC is always as objective as it could be.
Suspect ComRes will have a 8+ lead for Labour tonight. It does seem to be a bit less reflective of the trend we have seen from ICM, Yougov and Populus and prone to chunky movements between polls - last ten polls had Labour leads of 4, 9, 6, 8, 9, 3, 9, 6, 8, 4, so four out of the nine changes were at least four points and three of the nine were at least five points. If there are big changes I think they are more likely to extend than cancel out Labour's lead. All to be taken into the mix. I think since the start of the conference season Labour's lead has probably increased by about 1-1.5pts from a low of 4-6 to 5/6-7.
Surely the debate on whether the BBC is biased is always going to be moot.
If the tories put scrapping the license fee into the manifesto, proposing to relieve the overburdened squeezed voter of at least one fixed compulsory cost, would it be popular or not? Or is that one bill the poor squeezed middle is content to keep paying? Isn't that what Shapps was trying to find out?
As an aside, but an interesting one.
Let's assume that scrapping the licence fee was in the manifesto.
Doesn't that make the BBC an actor in the election... what impact would that have on their ability to cover things as presumably they could be judged to have a vested interest
Surely the debate on whether the BBC is biased is always going to be moot.
If the tories put scrapping the license fee into the manifesto, proposing to relieve the overburdened squeezed voter of at least one fixed compulsory cost, would it be popular or not? Or is that one bill the poor squeezed middle is content to keep paying? Isn't that what Shapps was trying to find out?
As an aside, but an interesting one.
Let's assume that scrapping the licence fee was in the manifesto.
Doesn't that make the BBC an actor in the election... what impact would that have on their ability to cover things as presumably they could be judged to have a vested interest
Well, that's one way to neutralise the BBC in 2015.
Surely the debate on whether the BBC is biased is always going to be moot.
If the tories put scrapping the license fee into the manifesto, proposing to relieve the overburdened squeezed voter of at least one fixed compulsory cost, would it be popular or not? Or is that one bill the poor squeezed middle is content to keep paying? Isn't that what Shapps was trying to find out?
As an aside, but an interesting one.
Let's assume that scrapping the licence fee was in the manifesto.
Doesn't that make the BBC an actor in the election... what impact would that have on their ability to cover things as presumably they could be judged to have a vested interest
During elections the BBC tends to behave pretty impeccably.
Completely off-topic, but I need to ask the Brains Trust here something.
What are chemtrails? And do we get sprayed by them?
I have this tree-huging friend on FB; someone who smokes impressive amounts of weed, and he often puts photos of aeroplanes on his page, kicking off that the 'government' is purposely spraying poisonous gasses over Wales again. Then his thread is full of fellow conspiracy theorists who think 'they are out to poison us'.
What's it all about? I'd never heard of chemtrails before this guy started venting about them.
I'm predicting CON 34 LAB 36 on ComRes if it's "big changes"
Whatever it is, Tory lead or Labour smash-up, it will be a massive outlier and therefore probably Just For Fun. Still it may at least change the narrative of this thread away from the bloody BBC.
Surprised the story regarding the 5 terrorist suspects who were arrested and have now been charged after allegedly attending an event at the planned site of the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games isn't gaining more traction.
" Stephen Deans quit his post at the plant, where he was the Unite convener, after allegations emerged he was using company time to organise the union’s “infiltration” of the Labour Party.
Mr Deans was at the centre of claims that Unite attempted to fix Labour’s selection process for the 2015 general election candidate in Falkirk, where he is the constituency chairman.
Labour cleared him of any wrongdoing but Ineos, the plant’s operators, held a separate investigation that studied around 1,000 emails he had sent and received from his company account.
These suggested that Unite officials were involved in a bid to undermine the Labour inquiry by getting key witnesses to withdraw their statements.
The company’s investigation into Mr Deans prompted Unite to threaten a strike at Grangemouth, which precipitated last week's crisis that saw it narrowly avoid closure.
The union official had been due to discover the findings at a meeting with managers on Tuesday morning, but Ineos announced he had resigned without attending."
Leaving aside questions of bias, I thought the BBC's coverage of the storm this morning was very poor. Most people would have been concerned about getting to work. However rather than reports with real factual information, perhaps studio-based, all we got was colour pieces - reporters getting wet by Dover docks, or standing in a deserted railway station. They could tell us nothing. A sensible idea might have been to extend the regional travel slots and again give us real facts and figures - nope.
Agreed. The coverage last night was equally rubbish – as you say, my main concern was how and whether I was going to get to work and whether or not my now infamous fence would take flight and decapitate a neighbour. The answers to these questions I did not find, although I was treated to an interview with a particularly gormless Welshman who's only story was that he "had not prepared".
FPT It will take more than a giant beach ball to despatch me.
I am sure I remember a rather remarkable photo of Kenneth Williams and a giant beach ball.
I shall need to google if I get bored at JFK...
Football fans the world over (except in the red half of Liverpool) will cherish this intervention by the famous ball at the Stadium of Light. Good to see the old rogue back in action today.
Surely the debate on whether the BBC is biased is always going to be moot.
If the tories put scrapping the license fee into the manifesto, proposing to relieve the overburdened squeezed voter of at least one fixed compulsory cost, would it be popular or not? Or is that one bill the poor squeezed middle is content to keep paying? Isn't that what Shapps was trying to find out?
As an aside, but an interesting one.
Let's assume that scrapping the licence fee was in the manifesto.
Doesn't that make the BBC an actor in the election... what impact would that have on their ability to cover things as presumably they could be judged to have a vested interest
During elections the BBC tends to behave pretty impeccably.
It wasn't meant to be a criticism of them - I do think there is likely to be an unconscious bias from the make-up of the employee bias. The other element, I think, which demonstrates a bias is the desire (I think I recall a spectator article about it) is the search for someone to say controversial things on the right. this means that 2 right vs 2 left often becomes 1 Tory, vs 2 Labour vs 1 "right winger" (e.g. UKIP, or Peter Hitchens, or Simon Heffer) that are often very much not Tories.
It was more the fact that all their coverage could be called into question. How could they get around that issue?
Surely the debate on whether the BBC is biased is always going to be moot.
If the tories put scrapping the license fee into the manifesto, proposing to relieve the overburdened squeezed voter of at least one fixed compulsory cost, would it be popular or not? Or is that one bill the poor squeezed middle is content to keep paying? Isn't that what Shapps was trying to find out?
As an aside, but an interesting one.
Let's assume that scrapping the licence fee was in the manifesto.
Doesn't that make the BBC an actor in the election... what impact would that have on their ability to cover things as presumably they could be judged to have a vested interest
During elections the BBC tends to behave pretty impeccably.
It wasn't meant to be a criticism of them - I do think there is likely to be an unconscious bias from the make-up of the employee bias. The other element, I think, which demonstrates a bias is the desire (I think I recall a spectator article about it) is the search for someone to say controversial things on the right. this means that 2 right vs 2 left often becomes 1 Tory, vs 2 Labour vs 1 "right winger" (e.g. UKIP, or Peter Hitchens, or Simon Heffer) that are often very much not Tories.
It was more the fact that all their coverage could be called into question. How could they get around that issue?
The Right Wing Purist is the money shot of PB. The Heffalump and the Hitch are particular faves of mine, although I also have a soft spot for Douglas Murray. Great telly.
Surprised the story regarding the 5 terrorist suspects who were arrested and have now been charged after allegedly attending an event at the planned site of the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games isn't gaining more traction.
The Right Wing Purist is the money shot of QT. The Heffalump and the Hitch are particular faves of mine, although I also have a soft spot for Douglas Murray. Great telly.
There is some cracking expectation management from the Tories on here over this Comres poll. "Labour above 40% Tories below 30%" "Oh I agree" "Labour surge"....so when it shows the Tories in front...."unbelievable" "Labour in meltdown" "Cameron majority nailed on". It is actually quite funny to read.
The Right Wing Purist is the money shot of QT. The Heffalump and the Hitch are particular faves of mine, although I also have a soft spot for Douglas Murray. Great telly.
David Starkey is another right winger worth watching.
I just read the Alex Massie piece on Russell Brand over at the Spectator. The comments on the Speccie pieces are worrying - some of those people seem nasty bastards. Either that or they've just got no friends.
There is some cracking expectation management from the Tories on here over this Comres poll. "Labour above 40% Tories below 30%" "Oh I agree" "Labour surge"....so when it shows the Tories in front...."unbelievable" "Labour in meltdown" "Cameron majority nailed on". It is actually quite funny to read.
It is rather LOL stuff.
If we have to guess I'd say a tightening rather than an expansion (and that's not expectations management)
I don't think any serious commentator can doubt there is an element of cultural, social and political bias in the BBC's news and current affairs reporting, nor that this is manifestly not a good thing. Many otherwise fine posters on PB demean themselves by talking of PBTory hysteria whenever this topic comes up. However, I think both the seriousness of the bias and its impact on the political climate is overstated.
Finally, the Conservatives do themselves no favours by discussing the need to address bias alongside the broader issue of the future of the licence fee. Few things chill the blood like the prospect of the Government of the day using control of funding as a lever in a discussion about editorial line.
What is (sadly) missing from the modern British political scene is an august body of essentially neutral "wise men" (who could of course be female) with the power and capacity to address matters like BBC reform, MPs salaries and expenses and constituency boundaries, without partisanship or undue influence from elected politicians. Every democrat in the coutry should be appalled by the bias in constituency boundaries; but many rejoice in it.
Every time I watch BBC, it's a bloody Tory on the screen: Joanna Gosling, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson.........
Toenails?
Of course. An ex-President of the Conservative Association at Oxford suddenly does not become neutral, you know.
There is some cracking expectation management from the Tories on here over this Comres poll. "Labour above 40% Tories below 30%" "Oh I agree" "Labour surge"....so when it shows the Tories in front...."unbelievable" "Labour in meltdown" "Cameron majority nailed on". It is actually quite funny to read.
It is rather LOL stuff.
If we have to guess I'd say a tightening rather than an expansion (and that's not expectations management)
Whatever it is, it will be an outlier.
The Tories below reminds me of all the parties when a close bye-election has just closed at 10PM and all the parties are saying "we done well but I think the others have won by two thousand votes". If it isn't a Tory lead on Comres, it will be a bit of an anti-climax. Double digit leads have been about quite a few times recently, so unless it's a 13% or above lead for Labour instead of a Tory one it will be just ....meh!
Surprised the story regarding the 5 terrorist suspects who were arrested and have now been charged after allegedly attending an event at the planned site of the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games isn't gaining more traction.
The power, under section 28 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, to proceed against the Scottish offence in the courts of England and Wales has not been exercised. That suggests that the Met are not involved, and that this is a "domestic" Scottish matter.
I'm not sure that a committee of the wise and good is the solution. We have far too many such arrangements and they are awful. Perhaps the printed press would be a good source of overseers - a random journalist from each of the major papers chosen every four years.
Thanks Omnium. I quite agree that we don't need a new committee - I was referring to existing structures like the House of Lords, which I fear has become too politicised to play a meaningful role in the matters to which I referred but which, if properly constituted, would be better placed than the Commons to oversee such matters.
The Lords was always political, it's now just more honest about it.
It won't be long before we see the headline...."Doctors urge Hunt to privatise NHS and sell it of to it's funders"....my money is it appearing in The Heil.
A lot of this is to do with snobbery. Tony Blair looked and sounded like a middle England Tory. Ed Miliband due to his marxist father and immigrant background does not meet with the tick list snobbery of most Tory voters. I don't think it is to do with EM's/Labours politics versus DC/Tory politics. Most Tories have very traditional old fashioned values and feel threatened by the diverse ethnic mix enjoyed in most of our major cities. This is why Labour dominate most of UK's largest cities and the Tories dominate the shires. The question should be asked as to whether the Tories can obtain the votes of people living in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and London. If they can't do so, they may be stuck below 35% of the vote and from there, they cannot win a majority.
Dear me, how often does this have to be explained to simpletons.
ELECTIONS AREN'T WON IN EITHER CITIES OR SHIRES BUT IN MEDIUM SIZED TOWNS
Wakefield is more important electorally than Leeds, Stalybridge is more important electorally than Manchester, Walsall is more important electorally than Birmingham etc etc.
Conservative votes in Manchester are as irrelevant as Labour votes in Surrey. Less so in fact as there are 11 Surrey constituencies and only 4 constituencies with the name Manchester in.
"Despite the party’s shrinking vote share, there are potential Tories at large in Scotland. As well as the small “Tory Core” – loyal Conservatives who always turn out – I found a group of what I have called “Reluctant Cameroons”. These people, one in six of the Scottish electorate, are attracted to David Cameron and trust the Tories on the economy, but most say they would not vote Conservative tomorrow. Another one in ten falls into the “Willing to Listen” group, who currently lean towards Labour despite preferring Cameron as PM, though many are undecided.
The Conservative Party holds three main attractions for its target voters: they prefer Cameron as PM; they see the Tories as willing to take tough decisions; and they trust the Tory team over Miliband and Balls to manage the economy.
At the same time, they see three big drawbacks. First, like many in England, they doubt the Tories are really on the side of people like them. Second, they do not feel the party cares much about Scotland, and has little enthusiasm for devolution. Finally, they consider the Tories effectively irrelevant in Scottish elections. Many who would support the Conservatives if they lived in England instead vote to try to keep out whichever of Labour or the SNP they believe more disastrous.
What can the Tories do about all this? First of all, they must show they are in touch with people’s anxieties and aspirations as they are today. This means campaigning on health, public services and housing as well as constitutional issues and the deficit, and understanding that the benefits of an economic recovery seem remote to many people.
Like David Cameron, Ruth Davidson is an asset here. If she has yet to make a big impression on Scottish voters, she is not alone: neither have Johann Lamont or Willie Rennie. The swing voters we spoke to had a generally positive view of her – and if the thing that most stuck in their minds was that she had been asked for ID when trying to buy a beer at a Springsteen gig at Hampden Park, this at least proves her to be the antithesis of the hunting-shooting-fishing caricature of the Scots Tory."
and Wellington, he was born in Ireland when it was not yet part of the UK.
Who was the only Prime Minister born in Wales?
Lloyd George
Nah, he was born in England, the only Welsh Prime Minister is Julia Gillard.
Lloyd George wasn't born in Wales but we count him as Welsh (a much better claim than say half the England cricket team have). Only British PM to learn English as a second language.
and Wellington, he was born in Ireland when it was not yet part of the UK.
Who was the only Prime Minister born in Wales?
Lloyd George
Nah, he was born in England, the only Welsh Prime Minister is Julia Gillard.
Lloyd George wasn't born in Wales but we count him as Welsh (a much better claim than say half the England cricket team have). Only British PM to learn English as a second language.
Bah, all the English cricket team have excellent links to England.
Comments
and no one is suggesting that he didn't already support the EU before it started paying him
Depressing what someone calls the lawyers in over that sort of thing. You can't even point out conflicts of interest without someone throwing a hissy fit and threatening expensive litigation if you don't make clear that you believe they are beyond the petty human plane of being subject to the conflict of interest.
It is not answerable to anybody.
I think that is probably right, but of course the practical effect of that is party-political. For example, the BBC is always much keener to tell us about the effect of a policy on the recipients of government spending than about the taxpayers who have to stump up the cash, and invariably sneers at any suggestion that immigration might be too high.
If all the LD switchers go back to Labour, and all the UKIP switchers go back to the Conservatives - who wins ?
Evenly split parliament with Lib-Lab coalition the most likely outcome, or a continuation of the coalition ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8370470/Labour-complains-to-BBC-in-cuts-or-savings-row.html
If anyone has reason to complain it is probably UKIP on the right and anti-monarchist, anti-capitalist groups on the left.
A brilliant own-goal!
No but they must make programmes people want to watch. And they must trim all coverage to the prevailing economic circumstances, given revenues often fall through the floor during recessions.
The BBC has no such worries.
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/stephen-deans-resignation/
"Unite and the frightened Scottish politicians they sponsor won’t be coming clean anytime soon. The largest question of all, though, is for Labour. Unite has betrayed thousands of Falkirk workers by putting juvenille Cuban flags and empty ideological rhetoric before them. Can Labour have the courage to confront Unite’s leadership now? Or are too many MPs and MSPs in just too deep?
It really is as simple as that."
You could argue that the bias in the BBC has been one of the factors which has forced the Conservatives to shift in the direction you identify. Now, as it happens, and as you rightly say, that was a move closer to my personal views. However, I don't think it is right for a state broadcaster, with a massive reach and a huge historic accumulation of public trust, to be influencing the debate in that or indeed in any way.
It was a watching brief really, but I did have a bit on and it worked out very well. Make sure you follow them when they race in this country.
Good post.
I'm not sure that a committee of the wise and good is the solution. We have far too many such arrangements and they are awful. Perhaps the printed press would be a good source of overseers - a random journalist from each of the major papers chosen every four years.
There is of course a difference between objectivity and balance (indeed some would argue they're usually at odds), and that is at the crux of the issue.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/unfortunate-bbc-moustache-for-nigel-farage-8829452.html
Let the BBC stand on its own two feet along with any other broadcaster who wants to enter a deregulated market. Easy. Sorted.
So so distant from the reality of the public.
*strokes chin*
I'm starting to get the impression that some on PB may think that the BBC is biased.
Laat month it was CON 32 LAB 37 LD 11 UKIP 11
The BBC is going to face tremendous pressures from new technology, and I simply cannot see how the current licence fee model will work. Looking online, few other people do, either.
Now I've mentioned the NHS, BBC and change in the same post, I'm off to read a book. ;-)
That is very amusing. If you think PMQ's matters more to the public than growth figures then Cameron might as well quit.
The only other plausible 'big changes' would be for the Tories to take the lead and I can't see that happening.
Unless both scenarios are outliers (which they are likely to be)
Earlier on when some people were saying that BBC drama is a bit rubbish, the predictable response from BBC fans was "that it's better than ITV". But the BBC isn't competing against just ITV, or even ITV and Sky. The BBC is up against Netflix, and Itunes, Amazon, and HBO might launch over here soon, and anything people can pirate. i.e. Everything.
And that's only TV, a form of distraction that is in itself in competion with all the other types of online entertainment, from Spotify to Facebook.
The license fee and the BBC seems out of date to me, but to people half my age it must be incomprehensible that we are taxed to provide services and programming they barely use.
Maybe the BBC will be able to cajole our politicians into giving it one more round of license fee funding, but I'd be surpirsed if it gets one after that.
If the Tories were equal or in the lead, that would be a surprise. But for all the froth Labour have been consistently in the lead for months and months now so it's really only the size of it which is at issue, no?
You have the growth numbers though. Don't forget those.
I shall need to google if I get bored at JFK...
Corporeal, I think you nailed it with your comment about the distinction - and often conflict - between balance and objectivity. I grumble about the BBC as much as the next man but I think on the whole they do a pretty reasonable job of conveying the main viewpoints (albeit I suspect passionate supporters of minority parties would disagree). However, that doesn't mean the BBC is always as objective as it could be.
Suspect ComRes will have a 8+ lead for Labour tonight. It does seem to be a bit less reflective of the trend we have seen from ICM, Yougov and Populus and prone to chunky movements between polls - last ten polls had Labour leads of 4, 9, 6, 8, 9, 3, 9, 6, 8, 4, so four out of the nine changes were at least four points and three of the nine were at least five points. If there are big changes I think they are more likely to extend than cancel out Labour's lead. All to be taken into the mix. I think since the start of the conference season Labour's lead has probably increased by about 1-1.5pts from a low of 4-6 to 5/6-7.
Let's assume that scrapping the licence fee was in the manifesto.
Doesn't that make the BBC an actor in the election... what impact would that have on their ability to cover things as presumably they could be judged to have a vested interest
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/245985-five-irish-republican-terror-suspects-charged-with-conspiracy-to-murder/
" Stephen Deans quit his post at the plant, where he was the Unite convener, after allegations emerged he was using company time to organise the union’s “infiltration” of the Labour Party.
Mr Deans was at the centre of claims that Unite attempted to fix Labour’s selection process for the 2015 general election candidate in Falkirk, where he is the constituency chairman.
Labour cleared him of any wrongdoing but Ineos, the plant’s operators, held a separate investigation that studied around 1,000 emails he had sent and received from his company account.
These suggested that Unite officials were involved in a bid to undermine the Labour inquiry by getting key witnesses to withdraw their statements.
The company’s investigation into Mr Deans prompted Unite to threaten a strike at Grangemouth, which precipitated last week's crisis that saw it narrowly avoid closure.
The union official had been due to discover the findings at a meeting with managers on Tuesday morning, but Ineos announced he had resigned without attending."
Pro-EU Group British Influence’s UKIP Charity Stitch Up http://guyfawk.es/1atG9Ns
Marvelous how Danny Alexander, Kenneth Clarke and Peter Mandelson get on so well together, when it comes to keeping Britain chained to the EU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdDk8A8ngs
It was more the fact that all their coverage could be called into question. How could they get around that issue?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24721737
Makes a change from arrests over songs at Parkhead.
The Right Wing Purist is the money shot of QT. The Heffalump and the Hitch are particular faves of mine, although I also have a soft spot for Douglas Murray. Great telly.
Sorry Bobajob, but they don't all win, you know!
I just read the Alex Massie piece on Russell Brand over at the Spectator. The comments on the Speccie pieces are worrying - some of those people seem nasty bastards. Either that or they've just got no friends.
The License fee is justified!
If we have to guess I'd say a tightening rather than an expansion (and that's not expectations management)
Whatever it is, it will be an outlier.
They do have the economic figures and Rentoul (is this a independent poll?) predicted a Tory majority.
ELECTIONS AREN'T WON IN EITHER CITIES OR SHIRES BUT IN MEDIUM SIZED TOWNS
Wakefield is more important electorally than Leeds, Stalybridge is more important electorally than Manchester, Walsall is more important electorally than Birmingham etc etc.
Conservative votes in Manchester are as irrelevant as Labour votes in Surrey. Less so in fact as there are 11 Surrey constituencies and only 4 constituencies with the name Manchester in.
"Despite the party’s shrinking vote share, there are potential Tories at large in Scotland. As well as the small “Tory Core” – loyal Conservatives who always turn out – I found a group of what I have called “Reluctant Cameroons”. These people, one in six of the Scottish electorate, are attracted to David Cameron and trust the Tories on the economy, but most say they would not vote Conservative tomorrow. Another one in ten falls into the “Willing to Listen” group, who currently lean towards Labour despite preferring Cameron as PM, though many are undecided.
The Conservative Party holds three main attractions for its target voters: they prefer Cameron as PM; they see the Tories as willing to take tough decisions; and they trust the Tory team over Miliband and Balls to manage the economy.
At the same time, they see three big drawbacks. First, like many in England, they doubt the Tories are really on the side of people like them. Second, they do not feel the party cares much about Scotland, and has little enthusiasm for devolution. Finally, they consider the Tories effectively irrelevant in Scottish elections. Many who would support the Conservatives if they lived in England instead vote to try to keep out whichever of Labour or the SNP they believe more disastrous.
What can the Tories do about all this? First of all, they must show they are in touch with people’s anxieties and aspirations as they are today. This means campaigning on health, public services and housing as well as constitutional issues and the deficit, and understanding that the benefits of an economic recovery seem remote to many people.
Like David Cameron, Ruth Davidson is an asset here. If she has yet to make a big impression on Scottish voters, she is not alone: neither have Johann Lamont or Willie Rennie. The swing voters we spoke to had a generally positive view of her – and if the thing that most stuck in their minds was that she had been asked for ID when trying to buy a beer at a Springsteen gig at Hampden Park, this at least proves her to be the antithesis of the hunting-shooting-fishing caricature of the Scots Tory."
Unlike the Welsh Rugby team under Graham Henry.
What was the anthem when he was in charge?
Land not quite of my fathers?