I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
This isn't the 70s.
Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.
Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed
Says who? Candidates are free to accept or decline media interviews. We had the Today programme , The World Tonight ,PM , and various TV programmes such as 24 Hours, This Week & Panorama in the 60s and 70s but the leadership hopefuls did not feel obliged to appear. Why did we need so much less scrutiny of the candidates in those days?
Candidates are free to accept or decline interviews, but voters are also free to judge candidates who decide to decline them. We are in the age of information now where candidates are rightly expected to be scrutinised more than in the past and those who fail to stand up to such scrutiny can be judged accordingly.
Boris has got the media all in a slavver. He'll announce tommorow to much fanfare !
If he annoys the media too much, their questions tomorrow could be rather amusing given all the skeletons we know about (and probably a few more that they know about but we don’t).
Those questions will play to Boris's advantage: his bumbling posho schtick is priced in, and so is his race-baiting, drug-adjacent past. What the hacks need to nail him on are his detailed plans for Brexit. They won't, of course. Instead Boris will spend the time side-stepping questions about not inhaling icing sugar and both Leave and Remain-supporting MPs will still believe he is on their side.
The debate in the Tory Party on TV licences really is absurd. Here's a party that is supposed to defend the interests of those who have saved and been frugal all of their lives, talking about stripping well-off pensioners of their TV licences: the same pensioners who will have to sell their homes to pay for their own care.
All while the Tory government sends £9bn a year to corrupt African regimes.
This is the kind of upside-down thinking Cameron and Osborne have given us.
As one of those who will have to pay their TV licence fee next year, I do wonder why we had to go from hero to zero; nothing this year, everything next. Clearly the Beeb have the records; they could charge those of us who up to now have a free licence half fee for a few years. It's not, after all, as though we're going to be around for long!
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
This isn't the 70s.
Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.
Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed
Says who? Candidates are free to accept or decline media interviews. We had the Today programme , The World Tonight ,PM , and various TV programmes such as 24 Hours, This Week & Panorama in the 60s and 70s but the leadership hopefuls did not feel obliged to appear. Why did we need so much less scrutiny of the candidates in those days?
Candidates are free to accept or decline interviews, but voters are also free to judge candidates who decide to decline them. We are in the age of information now where candidates are rightly expected to be scrutinised more than in the past and those who fail to stand up to such scrutiny can be judged accordingly.
You'd think he'd have learned from Mrs May; two or three, at most, and clumsy at that, interviews in the 2017 election and look what happened to her!
The debate in the Tory Party on TV licences really is absurd. Here's a party that is supposed to defend the interests of those who have saved and been frugal all of their lives, talking about stripping well-off pensioners of their TV licences: the same pensioners who will have to sell their homes to pay for their own care.
All while the Tory government sends £9bn a year to corrupt African regimes.
This is the kind of upside-down thinking Cameron and Osborne have given us.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
Get your point. But Corbyn only came to public consciousness when he was already quite old. Indeed his age is, arguably, his selling point, with his allotment and his string vests. He is the Magic Grandpa, after all.
Boris is meant to be youthful and amusing. He is not amusing when he reminds you of the grave.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
Boris is following the same path. From star of HIGNFY to a mere PM. It's sad.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
Get your point. But Corbyn only came to public consciousness when he was already quite old. Indeed his age is, arguably, his selling point, with his allotment and his string vests. He is the Magic Grandpa, after all.
Boris is meant to be youthful and amusing. He is not amusing when he reminds you of the grave.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
Boris is following the same path. From star of HIGNFY to a mere PM. It's sad.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
It is worth remembering that Johnson won the London mayorality in 2012 by 4% on the first round at the same time as the Conservatives ended up 9% behind Labour in the Assembly elections and as the Conservatives were being absolutely trashed in local elections up and down the rest of England, more so that at any other point of Cameron's premiership.
Some achievement that.
He was up against Ken Livingstone thought. Who was at or even past his sell-by by then.
More significantly, he was a strongly pro-Remain candidate, or so he told us.
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
This isn't the 70s.
Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.
Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed
Says who? Candidates are free to accept or decline media interviews. We had the Today programme , The World Tonight ,PM , and various TV programmes such as 24 Hours, This Week & Panorama in the 60s and 70s but the leadership hopefuls did not feel obliged to appear. Why did we need so much less scrutiny of the candidates in those days?
Candidates are free to accept or decline interviews, but voters are also free to judge candidates who decide to decline them. We are in the age of information now where candidates are rightly expected to be scrutinised more than in the past and those who fail to stand up to such scrutiny can be judged accordingly.
You'd think he'd have learned from Mrs May; two or three, at most, and clumsy at that, interviews in the 2017 election and look what happened to her!
Precisely and his fellow MPs have surely learned from Mrs May too.
If he doesn't end this allegation of cowardice he could see his support collapse.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
Well, looking at him makes me feel younger.
Just as looking at Boris makes me feel slimmer and more trustworthy.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
Well, looking at him makes me feel younger.
I think he looks about my age, and I'm ten years older!
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
Which is when we used to have August Bank Holiday! For a reason.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
Get your point. But Corbyn only came to public consciousness when he was already quite old. Indeed his age is, arguably, his selling point, with his allotment and his string vests. He is the Magic Grandpa, after all.
Boris is meant to be youthful and amusing. He is not amusing when he reminds you of the grave.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
Boris is following the same path. From star of HIGNFY to a mere PM. It's sad.
A fair point. But he's not quite there, yet.
I think his winning this leadership race is bordering on the inevitable. Whether that allows him to be PM for more than a week or two is still up for grabs. Expect of a lot of "bringing the country together" and "healing the wounds" tomorrow plus a "surprising" number of remainers in his first cabinet, hopefully including Rory.
Boris is many things, many of them not good, but stupid he isn't.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
Which is when we used to have August Bank Holiday! For a reason.
Quite. The timing of Britain's bank holidays is utterly retarded. Loads in Spring when the weather is iffy, then nothing all summer.... until the very end of August, when the weather is on the decline once again.
Move Easter Monday to early July, and call it something else (we will still have Good Friday to keep the God botherers happy). Move the August bank holiday to August 1. Done.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
In Dundee it is more between 11.45 and 3.30 but the day of the year is sadly variable.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
That's when the Central England Temperature peaks in the annual cycle, but that's not because sunny weather is more likely than in late August, or early July, but because of the lag period in temperature behind day length is 40 days for a maritime climate in the mid-latitudes. (Similarly, on average, the coldest day of the year is at the end of January/beginning of February).
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
In Dundee it is more between 11.45 and 3.30 but the day of the year is sadly variable.
But you've always got the midges, so there's that.
I do love Scotland, and it is magnificently beautiful in parts, but it always amazes me how the locals endure the weather. I find London almost intolerably cold and grey.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Interesting example. And a good one I reckon. Although how I'd put it with him is that he is still funny in old age but not as funny as when young - however the decline in his funniness is not as steep as in most others. Freddie Starr springs to mind as an example of the other extreme - a very marked decline. My idea of a comic genius back in the day - possessed really - but in his later years struggled to raise a chuckle.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
In Dundee it is more between 11.45 and 3.30 but the day of the year is sadly variable.
But you've always got the midges, so there's that.
I do love Scotland, and it is magnificently beautiful in parts, but it always amazes me how the locals endure the weather. I find London almost intolerably cold and grey.
A hot day on the London Underground or a coolish day walking in the hills? Hmm...There's worse things than rain. Several are standing for PM at the moment.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.
June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.
Which is when we used to have August Bank Holiday! For a reason.
Quite. The timing of Britain's bank holidays is utterly retarded. Loads in Spring when the weather is iffy, then nothing all summer.... until the very end of August, when the weather is on the decline once again.
Move Easter Monday to early July, and call it something else (we will still have Good Friday to keep the God botherers happy). Move the August bank holiday to August 1. Done.
IIRC the St Swithins Day legend arose because if the summer high pressure area, which brings good weather, is North of the Azores by early July it will stay there for a while. If it isn't depressions from the North Atlantic can move in, bringing periods of rain.
Has Boris's media adviser read it? Gove uses it as a peg to complain about the loss of defendants' rights.
A fair trial is increasingly less likely in English courts today. Michael Howard's Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act shifted the balance of justice even further against the defendant. It requires the defence to show its hand fully before the trial, letting the prosecution enhance its case before it is tested in open court. The 1996 Act also allows the prosecution to decide what material it will disclose to the defence. Giving the prosecution such discretion could lead to the suppression of papers that might help the defendant. The risk of miscarriages has increased, is increasing and all because faith in politicians was diminished 30 years ago.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
Well, looking at him makes me feel younger.
I think he looks about my age, and I'm ten years older!
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Garrison Keillor continues to be funny when he's older, but he's mainly on radio.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Interesting example. And a good one I reckon. Although how I'd put it with him is that he is still funny in old age but not as funny as when young - however the decline in his funniness is not as steep as in most others. Freddie Starr springs to mind as an example of the other extreme - a very marked decline. My idea of a comic genius back in the day - possessed really - but in his later years struggled to raise a chuckle.
Yes, I'd agree with that. Another problem with age + comedy is that a lot of comedy is essentially subversion: lampooning the powerful, satirising social norms, breaking taboos, and generally punching up.
When you are older and richer it becomes ludicrous to act the rebel.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Interesting example. And a good one I reckon. Although how I'd put it with him is that he is still funny in old age but not as funny as when young - however the decline in his funniness is not as steep as in most others. Freddie Starr springs to mind as an example of the other extreme - a very marked decline. My idea of a comic genius back in the day - possessed really - but in his later years struggled to raise a chuckle.
Yes, I'd agree with that. Another problem with age + comedy is that a lot of comedy is essentially subversion: lampooning the powerful, satirising social norms, breaking taboos, and generally punching up.
When you are older and richer it becomes ludicrous to act the rebel.
I thought this thread was about Boris, not Corbyn ?
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
What you experience as a 'frisson' is the cold shudder that will make me not only vote for but campaign for the Blues in any general election in which Corbyn is the opponent.
Each to his own. However it sounds like we are the same in one respect - we are both animated far more by Labour's agenda than by that of any other party.
It is worth remembering that Johnson won the London mayorality in 2012 by 4% on the first round at the same time as the Conservatives ended up 9% behind Labour in the Assembly elections and as the Conservatives were being absolutely trashed in local elections up and down the rest of England, more so that at any other point of Cameron's premiership.
Some achievement that.
He was up against Ken Livingstone thought. Who was at or even past his sell-by by then.
More significantly, he was a strongly pro-Remain candidate, or so he told us.
Really? He has more Eurosceptic political baggage than Corbyn:
" In early 1989, Johnson was appointed to the newspaper's Brussels bureau to report on the European Commission,[83] remaining in the post until 1994.[84] A strong critic of Commission President Jacques Delors, he established himself as one of the city's few Eurosceptic journalists.... Johnson biographer Andrew Gimson believed that these articles made Johnson "one of [Euroscepticism's] most famous exponents".[74] According to later biographer Sonia Purnell—who was Johnson's Brussels deputy[84]—he helped make Euroscepticism "an attractive and emotionally resonant cause for the Right", whereas previously it was associated with the British Left.[87] Johnson's articles established him as the favourite journalist of the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,[88] although Thatcher's successor, John Major, was annoyed by Johnson and spent much time attempting to refute his claims.[89] Johnson's articles exacerbated tensions between the Conservative Party's Eurosceptic and Europhile factions, tensions which were widely viewed as contributing to the party's defeat in the 1997 general election. As a result, Johnson earned the mistrust of many party members.[90] His writings were also a key influence on the emergence of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 1990s."
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
Chill out!
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
Are Labour likely to win this motion/debate thingy? And if they do, can parliament then simply stop No Deal?
If that is the case, it makes all the Hard Brext/No Deal leadership candidates look a bit ridiculous. However, maybe Labour won't win/it doesn't mean anything?
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
Chill out!
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
The driver less car one is quite good but she is standing for PM. In the vanishingly unlikely circumstance that she succeeds and then faces complicated Parliamentary maneuvering is something like that (a) going to have Bercow being helpful or (b)..... Of course you may take the view that Bercow is never helpful so far as Brexit is concerned but this sort of childishness is not adult enough for me. Humbug!
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
Chill out!
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
The 2015 Licence Fee settlement had four components:
- LF to start rising again in line with CPI from 2017 - BBC funding of broadband (£150m per year) to cease - iPlayer loophole closed (ie TVL required to watch iPlayer) - BBC to take over cost of TVL for over 75s
Factoring in household growth, putting it all together the BBC said it represented "flat cash" or a 10% real terms cut over 5 years (assuming 2% inflation for 5 years). The BBC said it was a good deal. Indeed compared to most public services a 10% real terms cut was a pretty generous result.
Whilst technically the BBC took over responsibility for the policy, there was no expectation the BBC would start charging over 75s - the whole deal was a package.
Now the BBC is going to start charging approx 65% of over 75 households - it will have done better than just about any public service other than the NHS - with almost no real terms cut in funding at all.
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
Chill out!
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
Chill out!
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
The driver less car one is quite good but she is standing for PM. In the vanishingly unlikely circumstance that she succeeds and then faces complicated Parliamentary maneuvering is something like that (a) going to have Bercow being helpful or (b)..... Of course you may take the view that Bercow is never helpful so far as Brexit is concerned but this sort of childishness is not adult enough for me. Humbug!
I just think it is rather sad, and that politicians can't win. We criticise them for being wooden, stiff, replicated and drone-like (and rightly so, you need warmth and charm in the job - see the career of Ms Teresa May). Yet when a politician comes along and shows that warmth and charm - and, if the hacks are to be believed - actually tells good jokes: then you accuse them of being childish and idiotic?
Heard an interview with her on the radio this morning. Sounded quite remarkable for 85 let alone 100. I don't usually go misty about old people - I tend to get distracted by the size of their ears - but I was both impressed and heart-warmed by the segment.
Did it help that it was radio and thus no visuals (eg ears) to process? Perhaps.
Interesting Labour strategy but a problem remains: *something* has to be decided. If No Deal is legally ruled out (and some Leavers will be outraged about such tactics being used), and the Deal doesn't pass, what then?
The 2015 Licence Fee settlement had four components:
- LF to start rising again in line with CPI from 2017 - BBC funding of broadband (£150m per year) to cease - iPlayer loophole closed (ie TVL required to watch iPlayer) - BBC to take over cost of TVL for over 75s
Factoring in household growth, putting it all together the BBC said it represented "flat cash" or a 10% real terms cut over 5 years (assuming 2% inflation for 5 years). The BBC said it was a good deal. Indeed compared to most public services a 10% real terms cut was a pretty generous result.
Whilst technically the BBC took over responsibility for the policy, there was no expectation the BBC would start charging over 75s - the whole deal was a package.
Now the BBC is going to start charging approx 65% of over 75 households - it will have done better than just about any public service other than the NHS - with almost no real terms cut in funding at all.
(to be continued)
iPlayer loophole was no such thing.
If the BBC is to be commercial and we rename the TV Licence to be a BBC Subscription Fee then iplayer being charged it makes sense.
But the TV licence is a fee to watch TV even if you don't want live BBC. The TV licence should be abolished for anyone who wants to watch TV but not BBC.
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
This isn't the 70s.
Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.
Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed
Says who? Candidates are free to accept or decline media interviews. We had the Today programme , The World Tonight ,PM , and various TV programmes such as 24 Hours, This Week & Panorama in the 60s and 70s but the leadership hopefuls did not feel obliged to appear. Why did we need so much less scrutiny of the candidates in those days?
Candidates are free to accept or decline interviews, but voters are also free to judge candidates who decide to decline them. We are in the age of information now where candidates are rightly expected to be scrutinised more than in the past and those who fail to stand up to such scrutiny can be judged accordingly.
PMs and Opposition Leaders receive far less forensic scrutiny today in the meaningful way that occurred until the 1990s. No longer do they expose themselves to 45 minutes of detailed questioning by the likes of Robin Day , Brian Walden or a panel of journalists on programmes such as Panorama. Instead we have to be content with a few minutes speaking to a Political Editor. Far better to return to the earlier formats - rather than continue with today's media charade which is far more entertainment based.
Heard an interview with her on the radio this morning. Sounded quite remarkable for 85 let alone 100. I don't usually go misty about old people - I tend to get distracted by the size of their ears - but I was both impressed and heart-warmed by the segment.
Did it help that it was radio and thus no visuals (eg ears) to process? Perhaps.
It seems to me that the only way that Parliament can prevent a no deal is to order the government to revoke by primary legislation. Voting or passing legislation against no deal is meaningless because it assumes that (a) we ask the EU for another extension and (b) they say yes, two things that look increasingly unlikely.
I don't think that there is a majority in the HoC for revocation without a second referendum although it may be close.
Besides, everyone in parliament (and out), seems to be ignoring the likelihood that the EU will simply veto an Extension in October, WHATEVER we do (unless we call a GE or a 2nd vote).
Parliament has precisely zero control over that, and this outcome is increasingly probable.
The UK media may have a collectively inflated ego, but when did it become the key means of influencing the opinion of just 312 other Conservative MPs? Isn't the best way of courting their support to speak to them at length in private on a one-to-one basis?
Are Labour likely to win this motion/debate thingy? And if they do, can parliament then simply stop No Deal?
There's no doubt that parliament is meant to be sovereign.
It's just a question of whether the Executive can manoeuvre in such a way as to prevent its exercising its sovereignty.
Normally such a conflict doesn't arise, which is probably why our unwritten but not non-existent constitution hasn't evolved to cope with it. The trouble with an unwritten constitution is that so many things operate by convention, which is fine when what happens is uncontentious, but becomes very difficult otherwise. If we ever do approach the point of a No Deal Brexit, the conventional approach may be strained beyond breaking point.
It seems to me that the only way that Parliament can prevent a no deal is to order the government to revoke by primary legislation.
We haven't yet tested whether the government could withstand the pressure from outside parliament to revoke if it really came down to no deal v revoke at the 11th hour.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Ben Elton is, I believe, about to tour a show for the first time in a very long time. It will be interesting to see if if the audiences are nostalgia based or whether there’ll be anyone under, say, 40.
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
Chill out!
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
The driver less car one is quite good but she is standing for PM. In the vanishingly unlikely circumstance that she succeeds and then faces complicated Parliamentary maneuvering is something like that (a) going to have Bercow being helpful or (b)..... Of course you may take the view that Bercow is never helpful so far as Brexit is concerned but this sort of childishness is not adult enough for me. Humbug!
I just think it is rather sad, and that politicians can't win. We criticise them for being wooden, stiff, replicated and drone-like (and rightly so, you need warmth and charm in the job - see the career of Ms Teresa May). Yet when a politician comes along and shows that warmth and charm - and, if the hacks are to be believed - actually tells good jokes: then you accuse them of being childish and idiotic?
Truly, we get the politicians we deserve.
Why the hell should politicians get to win? Greedy, self interested egoists of the first water. I reserve the right to criticise them no matter what they do. It's always deserved and then some.
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
Chill out!
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
The driver less car one is quite good but she is standing for PM. In the vanishingly unlikely circumstance that she succeeds and then faces complicated Parliamentary maneuvering is something like that (a) going to have Bercow being helpful or (b)..... Of course you may take the view that Bercow is never helpful so far as Brexit is concerned but this sort of childishness is not adult enough for me. Humbug!
I just think it is rather sad, and that politicians can't win. We criticise them for being wooden, stiff, replicated and drone-like (and rightly so, you need warmth and charm in the job - see the career of Ms Teresa May). Yet when a politician comes along and shows that warmth and charm - and, if the hacks are to be believed - actually tells good jokes: then you accuse them of being childish and idiotic?
Truly, we get the politicians we deserve.
Quite. I'm not a Leadsom fan, and regard the current contest as something of a farce, but see no harm at all in a bit of light relief at an event explicitly for that purpose.
And I'm absolutely sure Bercow's ego will be boosted by another mention of him, irrespective of the context or intent.
Mr. Byronic, perhaps if the Labour cunning plan happens, then No Deal becomes illegal, the EU refuses an extension, the Commons doesn't pass the Deal and there remains only one option: revocation.
[A sequence perhaps unlikely but we live in turbulent times].
There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.
The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.
In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.
In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.
So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.
Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.
Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.
Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Ben Elton is, I believe, about to tour a show for the first time in a very long time. It will be interesting to see if if the audiences are nostalgia based or whether there’ll be anyone under, say, 40.
Ben Elton wasn't funny when he was 20. Let alone now.
(PS I am talking about his stand-up - his writing was obviously much better, as in Blackadder)
Why is anyone surprised by Johnson hiding away? He spent eight years as London mayor avoiding scrutiny. He very rarely did press conferences. He only did interviews with friendly journalists. He never did speeches with Q&A. It's pretty clear why. He cannot be trusted not to make a complete fool of himself.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Ben Elton is, I believe, about to tour a show for the first time in a very long time. It will be interesting to see if if the audiences are nostalgia based or whether there’ll be anyone under, say, 40.
He's someone who overnight went from kicking the establishment where it hurt to being part of the establishment.
There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.
The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.
In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.
In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.
So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.
Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.
Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.
Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!
I don't know the background of this so I don't really understand your comment. You're saying last year the government funded 2/3rds, the BBC 1/3rd, this year the government is funding 1/3rd and the BBC 2/3rds, and next year the BBC will be funding 1/3rd again, and I guess the government will be funding nothing if it's been phased out. Who's funding the other 2/3rds?
Are Labour likely to win this motion/debate thingy? And if they do, can parliament then simply stop No Deal?
There's no doubt that parliament is meant to be sovereign.
It's just a question of whether the Executive can manoeuvre in such a way as to prevent its exercising its sovereignty.
Normally such a conflict doesn't arise, which is probably why our unwritten but not non-existent constitution hasn't evolved to cope with it. The trouble with an unwritten constitution is that so many things operate by convention, which is fine when what happens is uncontentious, but becomes very difficult otherwise. If we ever do approach the point of a No Deal Brexit, the conventional approach may be strained beyond breaking point.
That is nonsense. Sorry, but in no context does "parliament" mean "the house of commons" and in the context "parliamentary sovereignty" it means HoC plus HoL plus the Crown - that is, all the parties needed to enact a statute.
The 2015 Licence Fee settlement had four components:
- LF to start rising again in line with CPI from 2017 - BBC funding of broadband (£150m per year) to cease - iPlayer loophole closed (ie TVL required to watch iPlayer) - BBC to take over cost of TVL for over 75s
Factoring in household growth, putting it all together the BBC said it represented "flat cash" or a 10% real terms cut over 5 years (assuming 2% inflation for 5 years). The BBC said it was a good deal. Indeed compared to most public services a 10% real terms cut was a pretty generous result.
Whilst technically the BBC took over responsibility for the policy, there was no expectation the BBC would start charging over 75s - the whole deal was a package.
Now the BBC is going to start charging approx 65% of over 75 households - it will have done better than just about any public service other than the NHS - with almost no real terms cut in funding at all.
(to be continued)
iPlayer loophole was no such thing.
If the BBC is to be commercial and we rename the TV Licence to be a BBC Subscription Fee then iplayer being charged it makes sense.
But the TV licence is a fee to watch TV even if you don't want live BBC. The TV licence should be abolished for anyone who wants to watch TV but not BBC.
Absolutely. What does the BBC do now that isn't done at least as well by commercial organisations?
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Ben Elton is, I believe, about to tour a show for the first time in a very long time. It will be interesting to see if if the audiences are nostalgia based or whether there’ll be anyone under, say, 40.
Ben Elton wasn't funny when he was 20. Let alone now.
(PS I am talking about his stand-up - his writing was obviously much better, as in Blackadder)
I don't agree. I remember laughing at his stand up routine when it was on the TV.
Humour is subjective, so if his content does not appeal. You will not find him funny! I thought roy chubby brown was funny as well whereas alan partridge comic i did not
There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.
The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.
In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.
In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.
So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.
Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.
Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.
Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!
"NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost " So good for the BBC and 'Boo' to the government?
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Ben Elton is, I believe, about to tour a show for the first time in a very long time. It will be interesting to see if if the audiences are nostalgia based or whether there’ll be anyone under, say, 40.
Ben Elton wasn't funny when he was 20. Let alone now.
(PS I am talking about his stand-up - his writing was obviously much better, as in Blackadder)
I don't agree. I remember laughing at his stand up routine when it was on the TV.
Humour is subjective, so if his content does not appeal. You will not find him funny! I thought roy chubby brown was funny as well whereas alan partridge comic i did not
All I (dimly) remember was a loutish man screaming FATCHA!
Droll it was not. But chacun a son gout.
EDIT: out of curiosity I googled the history of this French phrase, apparently I am using a Quebecois mutation. Who knew.
Are Labour likely to win this motion/debate thingy? And if they do, can parliament then simply stop No Deal?
There's no doubt that parliament is meant to be sovereign.
It's just a question of whether the Executive can manoeuvre in such a way as to prevent its exercising its sovereignty.
Normally such a conflict doesn't arise, which is probably why our unwritten but not non-existent constitution hasn't evolved to cope with it. The trouble with an unwritten constitution is that so many things operate by convention, which is fine when what happens is uncontentious, but becomes very difficult otherwise. If we ever do approach the point of a No Deal Brexit, the conventional approach may be strained beyond breaking point.
That is nonsense. Sorry, but in no context does "parliament" mean "the house of commons" and in the context "parliamentary sovereignty" it means HoC plus HoL plus the Crown - that is, all the parties needed to enact a statute.
Of course parliament means parliament. No one had suggested otherwise.
There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.
The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.
In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.
In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.
So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.
Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.
Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.
Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!
I don't know the background of this so I don't really understand your comment. You're saying last year the government funded 2/3rds, the BBC 1/3rd, this year the government is funding 1/3rd and the BBC 2/3rds, and next year the BBC will be funding 1/3rd again, and I guess the government will be funding nothing if it's been phased out. Who's funding the other 2/3rds?
It is worth remembering that Johnson won the London mayorality in 2012 by 4% on the first round at the same time as the Conservatives ended up 9% behind Labour in the Assembly elections and as the Conservatives were being absolutely trashed in local elections up and down the rest of England, more so that at any other point of Cameron's premiership.
Some achievement that.
He was up against Ken Livingstone thought. Who was at or even past his sell-by by then.
More significantly, he was a strongly pro-Remain candidate, or so he told us.
Really? He has more Eurosceptic political baggage than Corbyn:
" In early 1989, Johnson was appointed to the newspaper's Brussels bureau to report on the European Commission,[83] remaining in the post until 1994.[84] A strong critic of Commission President Jacques Delors, he established himself as one of the city's few Eurosceptic journalists.... Johnson biographer Andrew Gimson believed that these articles made Johnson "one of [Euroscepticism's] most famous exponents".[74] According to later biographer Sonia Purnell—who was Johnson's Brussels deputy[84]—he helped make Euroscepticism "an attractive and emotionally resonant cause for the Right", whereas previously it was associated with the British Left.[87] Johnson's articles established him as the favourite journalist of the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,[88] although Thatcher's successor, John Major, was annoyed by Johnson and spent much time attempting to refute his claims.[89] Johnson's articles exacerbated tensions between the Conservative Party's Eurosceptic and Europhile factions, tensions which were widely viewed as contributing to the party's defeat in the 1997 general election. As a result, Johnson earned the mistrust of many party members.[90] His writings were also a key influence on the emergence of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 1990s."
There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.
The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.
In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.
In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.
So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.
Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.
Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.
Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!
I don't know the background of this so I don't really understand your comment. You're saying last year the government funded 2/3rds, the BBC 1/3rd, this year the government is funding 1/3rd and the BBC 2/3rds, and next year the BBC will be funding 1/3rd again, and I guess the government will be funding nothing if it's been phased out. Who's funding the other 2/3rds?
Or do you just mean that the other 2/3rds will now be charged, so they'll be back to where they were last year? If so, er... so what? The fact that they can make do through this year with only 1/3rd doesn't mean they could make do long term, right?
I see opposition remoaners conniving with the speaker to try and overturn the referendum result again.
Time to back an autumn election. 3.45 currently available on a 2019 GE, a monthly market has 15, 6, 11 and 32 for September, October, November and December respectively. (Betfair Ex).
Comments
The Australians seem to have managed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Stadium
Though there is a problem when the ball hits the ceiling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkcP5M2n-F0
Yesterday’s game would have been washed out today anyway.
The semis and finals have reserve days.
Though they almost certainly won't qualify for the finals.
The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.
Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjzONjTZrMU
If he doesn't end this allegation of cowardice he could see his support collapse.
Just as looking at Boris makes me feel slimmer and more trustworthy.
Boris is many things, many of them not good, but stupid he isn't.
https://order-order.com/2019/06/11/goves-liberal-case-bringing-back-hanging/
Move Easter Monday to early July, and call it something else (we will still have Good Friday to keep the God botherers happy). Move the August bank holiday to August 1. Done.
I do love Scotland, and it is magnificently beautiful in parts, but it always amazes me how the locals endure the weather. I find London almost intolerably cold and grey.
A fair trial is increasingly less likely in English courts today. Michael Howard's Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act shifted the balance of justice even further against the defendant. It requires the defence to show its hand fully before the trial, letting the prosecution enhance its case before it is tested in open court. The 1996 Act also allows the prosecution to decide what material it will disclose to the defence. Giving the prosecution such discretion could lead to the suppression of papers that might help the defendant. The risk of miscarriages has increased, is increasing and all because faith in politicians was diminished 30 years ago.
Or is that the point?
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1137781647745736705
Edit In fact full on Democrat leadership rallies !
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1137753570726559744
When you are older and richer it becomes ludicrous to act the rebel.
54 years old? ROTFL.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-48597952/the-archers-june-spencer-i-ll-keep-going-after-100
However, Leadsom's idiotic sign is ridiculous.
And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.
https://twitter.com/Annemariealex/status/1138437052066947073
I like this gag:
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1138434566627188738
" In early 1989, Johnson was appointed to the newspaper's Brussels bureau to report on the European Commission,[83] remaining in the post until 1994.[84] A strong critic of Commission President Jacques Delors, he established himself as one of the city's few Eurosceptic journalists.... Johnson biographer Andrew Gimson believed that these articles made Johnson "one of [Euroscepticism's] most famous exponents".[74] According to later biographer Sonia Purnell—who was Johnson's Brussels deputy[84]—he helped make Euroscepticism "an attractive and emotionally resonant cause for the Right", whereas previously it was associated with the British Left.[87] Johnson's articles established him as the favourite journalist of the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,[88] although Thatcher's successor, John Major, was annoyed by Johnson and spent much time attempting to refute his claims.[89] Johnson's articles exacerbated tensions between the Conservative Party's Eurosceptic and Europhile factions, tensions which were widely viewed as contributing to the party's defeat in the 1997 general election. As a result, Johnson earned the mistrust of many party members.[90] His writings were also a key influence on the emergence of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 1990s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Brexit_campaign:_2015–2016
I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1138438974979153921
https://twitter.com/brianspanner1/status/746488316510482433
If that is the case, it makes all the Hard Brext/No Deal leadership candidates look a bit ridiculous. However, maybe Labour won't win/it doesn't mean anything?
Does anyone know? It is all so confusing.
Charles I and his second son come to mind.
The 2015 Licence Fee settlement had four components:
- LF to start rising again in line with CPI from 2017
- BBC funding of broadband (£150m per year) to cease
- iPlayer loophole closed (ie TVL required to watch iPlayer)
- BBC to take over cost of TVL for over 75s
Factoring in household growth, putting it all together the BBC said it represented "flat cash" or a 10% real terms cut over 5 years (assuming 2% inflation for 5 years). The BBC said it was a good deal. Indeed compared to most public services a 10% real terms cut was a pretty generous result.
Whilst technically the BBC took over responsibility for the policy, there was no expectation the BBC would start charging over 75s - the whole deal was a package.
Now the BBC is going to start charging approx 65% of over 75 households - it will have done better than just about any public service other than the NHS - with almost no real terms cut in funding at all.
(to be continued)
Truly, we get the politicians we deserve.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/06/10/biden-leading-warren-among-democratic-voters-mass-poll-finds/GUVxw1pzDjA9Nau9cMAlCP/story.html
Did it help that it was radio and thus no visuals (eg ears) to process? Perhaps.
If the BBC is to be commercial and we rename the TV Licence to be a BBC Subscription Fee then iplayer being charged it makes sense.
But the TV licence is a fee to watch TV even if you don't want live BBC. The TV licence should be abolished for anyone who wants to watch TV but not BBC.
I don't think that there is a majority in the HoC for revocation without a second referendum although it may be close.
Besides, everyone in parliament (and out), seems to be ignoring the likelihood that the EU will simply veto an Extension in October, WHATEVER we do (unless we call a GE or a 2nd vote).
Parliament has precisely zero control over that, and this outcome is increasingly probable.
It's just a question of whether the Executive can manoeuvre in such a way as to prevent its exercising its sovereignty.
Normally such a conflict doesn't arise, which is probably why our unwritten but not non-existent constitution hasn't evolved to cope with it. The trouble with an unwritten constitution is that so many things operate by convention, which is fine when what happens is uncontentious, but becomes very difficult otherwise. If we ever do approach the point of a No Deal Brexit, the conventional approach may be strained beyond breaking point.
I'm not a Leadsom fan, and regard the current contest as something of a farce, but see no harm at all in a bit of light relief at an event explicitly for that purpose.
And I'm absolutely sure Bercow's ego will be boosted by another mention of him, irrespective of the context or intent.
[A sequence perhaps unlikely but we live in turbulent times].
The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.
In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.
In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.
So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.
Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.
Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.
Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!
(PS I am talking about his stand-up - his writing was obviously much better, as in Blackadder)
He can't bring it back.
Humour is subjective, so if his content does not appeal. You will not find him funny! I thought roy chubby brown was funny as well whereas alan partridge comic i did not
So good for the BBC and 'Boo' to the government?
Droll it was not. But chacun a son gout.
EDIT: out of curiosity I googled the history of this French phrase, apparently I am using a Quebecois mutation. Who knew.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chacun_à_son_goût
Time to back an autumn election. 3.45 currently available on a 2019 GE, a monthly market has 15, 6, 11 and 32 for September, October, November and December respectively. (Betfair Ex).