1. Stewart - Clear winner - 8/10 2. Javid - Solid performance throughout - 6.5/10 3. Hunt - Started poorly and improved. - 6/10 4. Gove - Just tried too hard - 4/10 5. Raab - Mr Terminator blew up.
Seconded.
No. The clear winner was Boris. Not attending that debacle was a sign of good judgement.
Makes him appear an arrogant twat which of course he is so I suppose job done.
Those who turned up were all completely unconvincing and harmed their own causes (partly because of the set up) so Boris' score of zero was still the highest of the night.
That is true. But let's add cowardice to the charge. Leadership candidates are supposed to lead, not hide.
Like hoping your team doesn't draw Barca in the CL quarterfinals. You will have to meet them in any case in the final and it shows you have no confidence in beating everyone.
A good leader chooses which battles not to fight. I don't like Boris but I can perfectly well see why he wouldn't want to be part of a six-man bunfight before the real battle comes when they face the members.
Boris is not leader yet. He wants to be a leader. And someone who wants to be a leader should be willing to debate, should be willing to put forward his vision before audiences, however hostile, to show that he has what it takes.
Rory may well not make it past the next round or to the run off, though I very much hope he does. But in his short campaign he has shown far more leadership skills than Boris has.
Boris has displayed entitlement, arrogance and cowardice. These are not worthwhile characteristics to have in any sort of leader, let alone at a time like this.
More fools Tory MPs if if they do not recognise the quality amongst them.
Boris fancies himself as another Churchill, but runs away from debate. Understandable in a front runner, but always a vote loser. The only debate is whether he would have lost even more votes by turning up and being exposed.
Raab: Stephen Metcalfe. Stewart: Tobias Ellwood, Margot James. Gove: David Mundell. Johnson: David Evenett, Andrew Griffiths, Esther McVey, Ben Bradley, Andrew Lewer.
1. Stewart - Clear winner - 8/10 2. Javid - Solid performance throughout - 6.5/10 3. Hunt - Started poorly and improved. - 6/10 4. Gove - Just tried too hard - 4/10 5. Raab - Mr Terminator blew up.
Seconded.
No. The clear winner was Boris. Not attending that debacle was a sign of good judgement.
Makes him appear an arrogant twat which of course he is so I suppose job done.
Those who turned up were all completely unconvincing and harmed their own causes (partly because of the set up) so Boris' score of zero was still the highest of the night.
That is true. But let's add cowardice to the charge. Leadership candidates are supposed to lead, not hide.
Like hoping your team doesn't draw Barca in the CL quarterfinals. You will have to meet them in any case in the final and it shows you have no confidence in beating everyone.
A good leader chooses which battles not to fight. I don't like Boris but I can perfectly well see why he wouldn't want to be part of a six-man bunfight before the real battle comes when they face the members.
Boris is not leader yet. He wants to be a leader. And someone who wants to be a leader should be willing to debate, should be willing to put forward his vision before audiences, however hostile, to show that he has what it takes.
Rory may well not make it past the next round or to the run off, though I very much hope he does. But in his short campaign he has shown far more leadership skills than Boris has.
Boris has displayed entitlement, arrogance and cowardice. These are not worthwhile characteristics to have in any sort of leader, let alone at a time like this.
More fools Tory MPs if if they do not recognise the quality amongst them.
Boris fancies himself as another Churchill, but runs away from debate. Understandable in a front runner, but always a vote loser. The only debate is whether he would have lost even more votes by turning up and being exposed.
The quality of the debate, such as it was, may have been improved by his absence.
1. Stewart - Clear winner - 8/10 2. Javid - Solid performance throughout - 6.5/10 3. Hunt - Started poorly and improved. - 6/10 4. Gove - Just tried too hard - 4/10 5. Raab - Mr Terminator blew up.
Seconded.
No. The clear winner was Boris. Not attending that debacle was a sign of good judgement.
Makes him appear an arrogant twat which of course he is so I suppose job done.
Those who turned up were all completely unconvincing and harmed their own causes (partly because of the set up) so Boris' score of zero was still the highest of the night.
That is true. But let's add cowardice to the charge. Leadership candidates are supposed to lead, not hide.
Like hoping your team doesn't draw Barca in the CL quarterfinals. You will have to meet them in any case in the final and it shows you have no confidence in beating everyone.
A good leader chooses which battles not to fight. I don't like Boris but I can perfectly well see why he wouldn't want to be part of a six-man bunfight before the real battle comes when they face the members.
Frit is quite a damaging political charge and I think he has laid himself open to just that.
But yes we shall see how it plays out with us members.
There is nothing that Boris is going to do to make you vote for him.
Nothing. Your vote is going to his rival. Or at best for Boris, spoiled if it is somehow Raab he faces.
Correct but amazingly and regrettably others don't necessarily think just like me and those factors may well be relevant to them.
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Stewart appears to be the only candidate who accepts that a) the EU isn't going to renegotiate the WA, and b) the government does not have a majority. So even if you think he's a bit wet, it really doesn't matter, as he's the only candidate dealing with reality, the others are a just a bunch of chancers.
If Stewart is knocked out of the contest on Tuesday (which still seems likely sadly), then the process becomes predictable and stultifying. Johnson will win by a canter against any of the others. But should Rory still be standing, Tuesday’s BBC debate could be electrifying and who knows. Yes, of course Johnson may still win by a canter....but we foot soldiers of the grass roots may yet get our money’s worth.
It’s the hope that kills you.
Aye...
If Stewart got it, how would he deal with Francois and Scooby gang? They would not stomach any Brexit realism. A split triggering an election contested by the Brexit surely a possibility.
I am not sure a Stewart govt could survive long.
Should be much more successful in engaging Labour moderates
But why would they prop up a Tory government?
Rory essentially offers Mays deal for a fourth time, When push comes to shove, we know that’s not a hugely popular option. He would need to offer a second vote to attract centrist votes. No sign of that compromise. He is not offering any other way of getting it through as far as I can see.
He is being honest. It may be his downfall but he is right.
Look actually Rory wasn't as good as I'd hoped he'd be but he is golden (for me) as long as he keeps telling it like it is.
But he isn’t dealing with the whole reality, which is there is no parliamentary majority for the deal. So he needs to do something else, whatever that might be.
Well, the problem is that there is no parliamentary, or plebiscite, probably, majotrity for anything.
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Rory is right and wrong. He fails to recognise the political realities of the past 6 months. The WA is currently impassable. If it were passable May would have passed it.
So what is he going to offer that May didn’t. Remember to pass the WA he needs opposition votes, the DUP and the ERG.
The bottom line is that Rory has his own unicorns.
Because on one occasion he has nothing to lose and on the other, everything
He was frightened because he had nothing to lose?
That's even worse...
I’m sure you’re being facetious, but it’s obviously in the Tory leadership debates that he has everything to lose. The only reason people like you want him to do them is because there’s more chance of him losing if he does, which proves he’s right to duck them
Because on one occasion he has nothing to lose and on the other, everything
He was frightened because he had nothing to lose?
That's even worse...
I’m sure you’re being facetious, but it’s obviously in the Tory leadership debates that he has everything to lose. The only reason people like you want him to do them is because there’s more chance of him losing if he does, which proves he’s right to duck them
Because on one occasion he has nothing to lose and on the other, everything
He was frightened because he had nothing to lose?
That's even worse...
I’m sure you’re being facetious, but it’s obviously in the Tory leadership debates that he has everything to lose. The only reason people like you want him to do them is because there’s more chance of him losing if he does, which proves he’s right to duck them
Why on earth are they on tv anyway?
They should be restricted to the MPs' whatsapp group?
Because on one occasion he has nothing to lose and on the other, everything
He was frightened because he had nothing to lose?
That's even worse...
I’m sure you’re being facetious, but it’s obviously in the Tory leadership debates that he has everything to lose. The only reason people like you want him to do them is because there’s more chance of him losing if he does, which proves he’s right to duck them
Why on earth are they on tv anyway?
1. MPs take note of the polls 2. They have their hustings this week.
Genuinely thought that was one of those web template thingies where you take a genuine poster and insert your own text. WTF is the comma doing after "party" other than highlighting the lack of a full stop at the end? And "party who sorts it out" sounds terrible, like one cockney telling another in a bad movie that if he wants 'er indoors polished off, he knows a geezer who will sort it out.
Boris has been on tv enough for the public and the Tory membership to know him, it’s the outsiders that need the publicity, which is why Cameron ducked Farage
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Stewart appears to be the only candidate who accepts that a) the EU isn't going to renegotiate the WA, and b) the government does not have a majority. So even if you think he's a bit wet, it really doesn't matter, as he's the only candidate dealing with reality, the others are a just a bunch of chancers.
But he isn’t dealing with whole reality. He thinks he can find a majority where May couldn’t without offering anything new.
If Stewart is knocked out of the contest on Tuesday (which still seems likely sadly), then the process becomes predictable and stultifying. Johnson will win by a canter against any of the others. But should Rory still be standing, Tuesday’s BBC debate could be electrifying and who knows. Yes, of course Johnson may still win by a canter....but we foot soldiers of the grass roots may yet get our money’s worth.
It’s the hope that kills you.
Aye...
If Stewart got it, how would he deal with Francois and Scooby gang? They would not stomach any Brexit realism. A split triggering an election contested by the Brexit surely a possibility.
I am not sure a Stewart govt could survive long.
Should be much more successful in engaging Labour moderates
But why would they prop up a Tory government?
Rory essentially offers Mays deal for a fourth time, When push comes to shove, we know that’s not a hugely popular option. He would need to offer a second vote to attract centrist votes. No sign of that compromise. He is not offering any other way of getting it through as far as I can see.
He is being honest. It may be his downfall but he is right.
Look actually Rory wasn't as good as I'd hoped he'd be but he is golden (for me) as long as he keeps telling it like it is.
But he isn’t dealing with the whole reality, which is there is no parliamentary majority for the deal. So he needs to do something else, whatever that might be.
Well, the problem is that there is no parliamentary, or plebiscite, probably, majotrity for anything.
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Rory is right and wrong. He fails to recognise the political realities of the past 6 months. The WA is currently impassable. If it were passable May would have passed it.
So what is he going to offer that May didn’t. Remember to pass the WA he needs opposition votes, the DUP and the ERG.
The bottom line is that Rory has his own unicorns.
If May's deal won't pass and No Deal isn't acceptable the only options that may possibly get through Parliament is a referendum or revoke. Exactly which one of those 2 options can any Tory leader offer.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
Chernobyl was a HBO/Sky co-production but I agree with your point otherwise.
Raab: Stephen Metcalfe. Stewart: Tobias Ellwood, Margot James. Gove: David Mundell. Johnson: David Evenett, Andrew Griffiths, Esther McVey, Ben Bradley, Andrew Lewer.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
I think that Brexit could be our worst act of self-harming since the use of sliced bread or the imposition of reparation payments on Germany after WWI.
Endless nitpicking will not alter the fact that the outcome is like the flip of an un-faceted two sided coin: either revoke or make something like a complete break.
I fear that should Boris (who talks about the sanctity of the public will expressed in the referendum, but has changed his view as egoism dictated) be in charge something like a complete break may happen.
The odd thing about the debate was hearing the shock and disgust from the various candidates about the state of adult social care or the price of housing or the state of 3ducation. Perhaps it was a different party in office these last nine years, and a different Gove and Hunt directly responsible for them
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
If Stewart got it, how would he deal with Francois and Scooby gang? They would not stomach any Brexit realism. A split triggering an election contested by the Brexit surely a possibility.
I am not sure a Stewart govt could survive long.
Should be much more successful in engaging Labour moderates
But why would they prop up a Tory government?
Rory essentially offers Mays deal for a fourth time, When push comes to shove, we know that’s not a hugely popular option. He would need to offer a second vote to attract centrist votes. No sign of that compromise. He is not offering any other way of getting it through as far as I can see.
He is being honest. It may be his downfall but he is right.
Look actually Rory wasn't as good as I'd hoped he'd be but he is golden (for me) as long as he keeps telling it like it is.
But he isn’t dealing with the whole reality, which is there is no parliamentary majority for the deal. So he needs to do something else, whatever that might be.
Well, the problem is that there is no parliamentary, or plebiscite, probably, majotrity for anything.
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Rory is right and wrong. He fails to recognise the political realities of the past 6 months. The WA is currently impassable. If it were passable May would have passed it.
So what is he going to offer that May didn’t. Remember to pass the WA he needs opposition votes, the DUP and the ERG.
The bottom line is that Rory has his own unicorns.
If May's deal won't pass and No Deal isn't acceptable the only options that may possibly get through Parliament is a referendum or revoke. Exactly which one of those 2 options can any Tory leader offer.
If Stewart is knocked out of the contest on Tuesday (which still seems likely sadly), then the process becomes predictable and stultifying. Johnson will win by a canter against any of the others. But should Rory still be standing, Tuesday’s BBC debate could be electrifying and who knows. Yes, of course Johnson may still win by a canter....but we foot soldiers of the grass roots may yet get our money’s worth.
It’s the hope that kills you.
Aye...
If Stewart got it, how would he deal with Francois and Scooby gang? They would not stomach any Brexit realism. A split triggering an election contested by the Brexit surely a possibility.
I am not sure a Stewart govt could survive long.
Should be much more successful in engaging Labour moderates
But why would they prop up a Tory government?
Rory essentially offers Mays deal for a fourth time, When push comes to shove, we know that’s not a hugely popular option. He would need to offer a second vote to attract centrist votes. No sign of that compromise. He is not offering any other way of getting it through as far as I can see.
He is being honest. It may be his downfall but he is right.
Look actually Rory wasn't as good as I'd hoped he'd be but he is golden (for me) as long as he keeps telling it like it is.
But he isn’t dealing with the whole reality, which is there is no parliamentary majority for the deal. So he needs to do something else, whatever that might be.
Well, the problem is that there is
Rory is right and wrong. He fails to recognise the political realities of the past 6 months. The WA is currently impassable. If it were passable May would have passed it.
So what is he going to offer that May didn’t. Remember to pass the WA he needs opposition votes, the DUP and the ERG.
The bottom line is that Rory has his own unicorns.
If May's deal won't pass and No Deal isn't acceptable the only options that may possibly get through Parliament is a referendum or revoke. Exactly which one of those 2 options can any Tory leader offer.
Today I think we’re heading towards a messy General Election. This election determines whether the Tories enter that election on a hard or soft Brexit ticket.
A fudge beyond Oct 31 is looking hard to sustain in the Commons.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
Was Chernobyl on the BBC?! I thought it was on Sky Atlantic.
There are many other programs on the BBC. When talking about youngsters, there's things like Go-Jetters (which started my son's obsession with China and building), and Operation Ouch! , which is a fun medical-based program. Or 'Do you know?', 'Nina and the Neurons', 'Alphablocks' / 'Numberblocks', etc, etc. There are also oodles of dramas and other things for older kids.
Nothing on t'Internet is quite like it. And that's just kids programs.
The BBC licence fee is amazingly good value (enter/info)tainment.
OK I see you kids programs and raise you a plethora of alternatives.
My children are girls ages 3 and 5 so we've had kids programs on for the last five years and they've very rarely watched BBC. For cheaper than the TV tax you can pay for both Netflix and Disneylife.
On Disney my kids love Doc McStuffins [also a fun medical-based program], Sophia the First, DuckTales, Goldie and Bear, Mickey Mouse, PJ Masks, Puppy Dog Pals and basically the entire back catalogue of hundreds of movies including almost every animated classic.
On Netflix there is an entire Childrens category that include more shows than I could name. They like Doctor Seuss, Paw Patrol, Peppa Pig, Monster Pets, Luna Petunia and more.
On Freeview there are even more channels that can be watched for free paid by advertising. If we are away and stuck with Freeview my kids would rather watch Pop Jr. They like Alvin and the Chipmunks, Barbie, Trolls, Littlest Pet Shop, Pokemon and more
The examples I've given have a distinct female/preschool bias because of the age of my kids but there is something out there for everyone.
Quite frankly between commercial terrestial TV like Pop and cheaper alternative subscriptions like Disneylife and Netflix (both combined cheaper than BBC) there is far more variety for children than simply 2 channels.
If Stewart is knocked out of the contest on Tuesday (which still seems likely sadly), then the process becomes predictable and stultifying. Johnson will win by a canter against any of the others. But should Rory still be standing, Tuesday’s BBC debate could be electrifying and who knows. Yes, of course Johnson may still win by a canter....but we foot soldiers of the grass roots may yet get our money’s worth.
It’s the hope that kills you.
Aye...
If Stew the Brexit surely a possibility.
I am not sure a Stewart govt could survive long.
Should be much more successful in engaging Labour moderates
But why would they prop up a Tory government?
Rory essentially offers Mays deal for a fourth time, When push comes to shove, we know that’s not a hugely popular option. He would need to offer a second vote to attract centrist votes. No sign of that compromise. He is not offering any other way of getting it through as far as I can see.
He is being honest. It may be his downfall but he is right.
Look actually Rory wasn't as good as I'd hoped he'd be but he is golden (for me) as long as he keeps telling it like it is.
But he isn’t dealing with the whole reality, which is there is no parliamentary majority for the deal. So he needs to do something else, whatever that might be.
Well, the problem is that there is no parliamentary, or plebiscite, probably, majotrity for anything.
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Rory is right and wrong. He fails to recognise the political realities of the past 6 months. The WA is currently impassable. If it were passable May would have passed it.
So what is he going to offer that May didn’t. Remember to pass the WA he needs opposition votes, the DUP and the ERG.
The bottom line is that Rory has his own unicorns.
If May's deal won't pass and No Deal isn't acceptable the only options that may possibly get through Parliament is a referendum or revoke. Exactly which one of those 2 options can any Tory leader offer.
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
Was Chernobyl on the BBC?! I thought it was on Sky Atlantic.
I am stupid. A bad boy made me type it and ran away. It was his fault...
There are many other programs on the BBC. When talking about youngsters, there's things like Go-Jetters (which started my son's obsession with China and building), and Operation Ouch! , which is a fun medical-based program. Or 'Do you know?', 'Nina and the Neurons', 'Alphablocks' / 'Numberblocks', etc, etc. There are also oodles of dramas and other things for older kids.
Nothing on t'Internet is quite like it. And that's just kids programs.
The BBC licence fee is amazingly good value (enter/info)tainment.
OK I see you kids programs and raise you a plethora of alternatives.
My children are girls ages 3 and 5 so we've had kids programs on for the last five years and they've very rarely watched BBC. For cheaper than the TV tax you can pay for both Netflix and Disneylife.
On Disney my kids love Doc McStuffins [also a fun medical-based program], Sophia the First, DuckTales, Goldie and Bear, Mickey Mouse, PJ Masks, Puppy Dog Pals and basically the entire back catalogue of hundreds of movies including almost every animated classic.
On Netflix there is an entire Childrens category that include more shows than I could name. They like Doctor Seuss, Paw Patrol, Peppa Pig, Monster Pets, Luna Petunia and more.
On Freeview there are even more channels that can be watched for free paid by advertising. If we are away and stuck with Freeview my kids would rather watch Pop Jr. They like Alvin and the Chipmunks, Barbie, Trolls, Littlest Pet Shop, Pokemon and more
Quite frankly between commercial terrestial TV like Pop and cheaper alternative subscriptions like Disneylife and Netflix (both combined cheaper than BBC) there is far more variety for children than simply 2 channels.
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
There are many other programs on the BBC. When talking about youngsters, there's things like Go-Jetters (which started my son's obsession with China and building), and Operation Ouch! , which is a fun medical-based program. Or 'Do you know?', 'Nina and the Neurons', 'Alphablocks' / 'Numberblocks', etc, etc. There are also oodles of dramas and other things for older kids.
Nothing on t'Internet is quite like it. And that's just kids programs.
The BBC licence fee is amazingly good value (enter/info)tainment.
OK I see you kids programs and raise you a plethora of alternatives.
My children are girls ages 3 and 5 so we've had kids programs on for the last five years and they've very rarely watched BBC. For cheaper than the TV tax you can pay for both Netflix and Disneylife.
On Disney my kids love Doc McStuffins [also a fun medical-based program], Sophia the First, DuckTales, Goldie and Bear, Mickey Mouse, PJ Masks, Puppy Dog Pals and basically the entire back catalogue of hundreds of movies including almost every animated classic.
On Netflix there is an entire Childrens category that include more shows than I could name. They like Doctor Seuss, Paw Patrol, Peppa Pig, Monster Pets, Luna Petunia and more.
On Freeview there are even more channels that can be watched for free paid by advertising. If we are away and stuck with Freeview my kids would rather watch Pop Jr. They like Alvin and the Chipmunks, Barbie, Trolls, Littlest Pet Shop, Pokemon and more
Quite frankly between commercial terrestial TV like Pop and cheaper alternative subscriptions like Disneylife and Netflix (both combined cheaper than BBC) there is far more variety for children than simply 2 channels.
BBC isn't 'two channels'.
We were talking childrens channels. AFAIK on the BBC there is CBBC and Cbeebies, apologies if there is more. Incidentally neither of them are broadcasting right now!
On terrestial there is far more commercial than just that and including Disney and Netflix let alone other sources there is much, much, much more. Many of them broadcasting right now too. Yes in an ideal world children should be asleep but tell that to a jetlagged child, a teething infant or other examples when nighttime broadcasts work.
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
So essentially Parliament looking to thwart a democratic vote?
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Stewart appears to be the only candidate who accepts that a) the EU isn't going to renegotiate the WA, and b) the government does not have a majority. So even if you think he's a bit wet, it really doesn't matter, as he's the only candidate dealing with reality, the others are a just a bunch of chancers.
But he isn’t dealing with whole reality. He thinks he can find a majority where May couldn’t without offering anything new.
Unfortunately so. MV3 was the final hope that sufficient ERGers and Labour 'moderates' might come on board, and it was technically pretty close, at least compared to where it started out, but it was just too much. Everyone is now focused on no deal, revoke/referendum, or insisting new negotiations will bear fruit, even those who did vote for the WA. However right it might be that that is the way to ensure Brexit (since a GE with no deal as the policy is a risk), being right on that won't make it pass.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
No doubt the BBC can make some decent stuff. As can Netflix, Sky and ITV. Even Channel 4 can sometimes. If it couldn't it wouldn't be worth a bean.
But why should Chernobyl be paid for via Sky, or Game of Thrones, by those who want it . . . or great Netflix dramas including The Crown on Netflix [incidentally not my pick and I've not watched it but many have and it seems fitting in your vein of examples] . . . or via commercials like Downton Abbey . . . but I need to pay taxes so you can watch Killing Eve even if I don't?
Why do I pay taxes so you can watch Go-Jetters while my daughters watch Doc McStuffins?
I'm not arguing the BBC is terrible. It clearly isn't. It should be paid for by those who want it same as all its rivals are one way or another.
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
Wait a moment, someone’s will pop up arguing that giving people a full choice is somehow undemocratic. It’s an infinite Brexit loop of pottiness and nothing we’ve seen so far in this leadership election is going to break us out of it.
There are many other programs on the BBC. When talking about youngsters, there's things like Go-Jetters (which started my son's obsession with China and building), and Operation Ouch! , which is a fun medical-based program. Or 'Do you know?', 'Nina and the Neurons', 'Alphablocks' / 'Numberblocks', etc, etc. There are also oodles of dramas and other things for older kids.
Nothing on t'Internet is quite like it. And that's just kids programs.
The BBC licence fee is amazingly good value (enter/info)tainment.
OK I see you kids programs and raise you a plethora of alternatives.
My children are girls ages 3 and 5 so we've had kids programs on for the last five years and they've very rarely watched BBC. For cheaper than the TV tax you can pay for both Netflix and Disneylife.
On Disney my kids love Doc McStuffins [also a fun medical-based program], Sophia the First, DuckTales, Goldie and Bear, Mickey Mouse, PJ Masks, Puppy Dog Pals and basically the entire back catalogue of hundreds of movies including almost every animated classic.
On Netflix there is an entire Childrens category that include more shows than I could name. They like Doctor Seuss, Paw Patrol, Peppa Pig, Monster Pets, Luna Petunia and more.
On Freeview there are even more channels that can be watched for free paid by advertising. If we are away and stuck with Freeview my kids would rather watch Pop Jr. They like Alvin and the Chipmunks, Barbie, Trolls, Littlest Pet Shop, Pokemon and more
Quite frankly between commercial terrestial TV like Pop and cheaper alternative subscriptions like Disneylife and Netflix (both combined cheaper than BBC) there is far more variety for children than simply 2 channels.
BBC isn't 'two channels'.
We were talking childrens channels. AFAIK on the BBC there is CBBC and Cbeebies, apologies if there is more. Incidentally neither of them are broadcasting right now!
On terrestial there is far more commercial than just that and including Disney and Netflix let alone other sources there is much, much, much more. Many of them broadcasting right now too. Yes in an ideal world children should be asleep but tell that to a jetlagged child, a teething infant or other examples when nighttime broadcasts work.
Believe me, I know all about that. Although when he wouldn't sleep at night, there was no effing way I was going to plonk him in front of a TV,
I do think you do the BBC a massive disservice. I have argued repeatedly on here that their funding model is borken in the long term, and that splatting band-aids onto it is not going to work. However I also believe that the lience fee - for me - is great value for money, and there's no way the competitors are the same value.
I think the idea of suspending parliament to force through no deal has finished off Raab.
Not sure why he ever thought this was a good idea . He can’t argue for more sovereignty and at the same time argue to shut down parliament .
A gamble - there are clearly a lot of people, Tories in particular, who would contemplate anything if it means we do actually Brexit, since even BINO is looking on shaky ground thesedays. It was a way of appearing really tough on the subject, I imagine, particularly as he might have guessed people would not believe Boris would go through with his own 'plans'. But Boris is believed, it would seem, by the hardest leavers, so Raab just looks like he is posturing.
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
How is BoZo going to square up to the EU 27 when he is afraid to face 5 of his colleagues?
Because on one occasion he has nothing to lose and on the other, everything
But he did lose a bit by not attending. He has a reputation for cowardice which his absence today augmented.
He's already been forgiventhings that sink others, and we've seen the excuses that his people are using - no reason to think they won't work on the members, and who will even remember once he quotes some Churchill the next time he is criticised by one of the other candidates, who are weakened by the very fact everyone knows they are so far behind Boris in terms of popularity, it makes every comment in opposition to him seem desperate.
The odd thing about the debate was hearing the shock and disgust from the various candidates about the state of adult social care or the price of housing or the state of 3ducation. Perhaps it was a different party in office these last nine years, and a different Gove and Hunt directly responsible for them
A labour supporter going after the tories on house prices takes some front.
Are we supposed to airbrush out of history house price inflation and mickey mouse mortgages under the last Labour government?
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
No doubt the BBC can make some decent stuff. As can Netflix, Sky and ITV. Even Channel 4 can sometimes. If it couldn't it wouldn't be worth a bean.
But why should Chernobyl be paid for via Sky, or Game of Thrones, by those who want it . . . or great Netflix dramas including The Crown on Netflix [incidentally not my pick and I've not watched it but many have and it seems fitting in your vein of examples] . . . or via commercials like Downton Abbey . . . but I need to pay taxes so you can watch Killing Eve even if I don't?
Why do I pay taxes so you can watch Go-Jetters while my daughters watch Doc McStuffins?
I'm not arguing the BBC is terrible. It clearly isn't. It should be paid for by those who want it same as all its rivals are one way or another.
Game of Thrones is pants. I watched a little bit of it and realised it is fantasy for people who don't get fantasy - in the same way Star Trek is Sci for people who don't get science fiction, and Star Wars is for those who will never get it.
Oh, and Go Jetters is British not American rubbish.
Probably not worth doing this again but no, it makes a mockery of the process as announced by David Cameron, but that process is already looking very mockeryey.
Believe me, I know all about that. Although when he wouldn't sleep at night, there was no effing way I was going to plonk him in front of a TV,
I do think you do the BBC a massive disservice. I have argued repeatedly on here that their funding model is borken in the long term, and that splatting band-aids onto it is not going to work. However I also believe that the lience fee - for me - is great value for money, and there's no way the competitors are the same value.
You evidently differ.
That's fine. You don't have to plomp him in front of the TV but sometimes it is nice to have a choice. Choice is something I care about. So you can pay £154.50 for your License Fee and get what you want.
And I can pay nothing and have my kids watch Pop TV on free to air, while I watch ITV or Channel 4 for free . . . oh wait I can't I need to pay the £154.50 too even if I don't switch the BBC on.
Or I can pay £4.99 per month (£59.88 per annum) for DisneyLife and/or £5.99 per month (£71.88 per annum) for Netflix. Both combined come to £131.76 per annum. Except I still have to pay the BBC even if I don't want to watch it if I want to watch absolutely anything broadcast live.
I'm not suggesting you should be forced by law to pay for both Netflix and Disneylife [even though combined they cost less than the BBC] and I think if I did suggest that it would be unreasonable. So why is it unreasonable for me to suggest the BBC should be a choice for those who want it?
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Stewart appears to be the only candidate who accepts that a) the EU isn't going to renegotiate the WA, and b) the government does not have a majority. So even if you think he's a bit wet, it really doesn't matter, as he's the only candidate dealing with reality, the others are a just a bunch of chancers.
But he isn’t dealing with whole reality. He thinks he can find a majority where May couldn’t without offering anything new.
Unfortunately so. MV3 was the final hope that sufficient ERGers and Labour 'moderates' might come on board, and it was technically pretty close, at least compared to where it started out, but it was just too much. Everyone is now focused on no deal, revoke/referendum, or insisting new negotiations will bear fruit, even those who did vote for the WA. However right it might be that that is the way to ensure Brexit (since a GE with no deal as the policy is a risk), being right on that won't make it pass.
Calling Labour MPs who voted for the WA as moderates is strange, in what way are they moderates? They just think, wrongly, they need to do it to save their seat
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
REMAIN means a rerun of 2016 and will fuel an endless narrative of betrayal. REMAIN may well be the best option economically, but the country has voted to leave.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
No doubt the BBC can make some decent stuff. As can Netflix, Sky and ITV. Even Channel 4 can sometimes. If it couldn't it wouldn't be worth a bean.
But why should Chernobyl be paid for via Sky, or Game of Thrones, by those who want it . . . or great Netflix dramas including The Crown on Netflix [incidentally not my pick and I've not watched it but many have and it seems fitting in your vein of examples] . . . or via commercials like Downton Abbey . . . but I need to pay taxes so you can watch Killing Eve even if I don't?
Why do I pay taxes so you can watch Go-Jetters while my daughters watch Doc McStuffins?
I'm not arguing the BBC is terrible. It clearly isn't. It should be paid for by those who want it same as all its rivals are one way or another.
Why do I pay taxes so that your* children can be educated when I have no children myself?
(*Or if yours are privately educated, as I suspect they may be, why do I pay taxes for the 93% of children who are state educated?)
The answer is because it adds value to the country.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
No doubt the BBC can make some decent stuff. As can Netflix, Sky and ITV. Even Channel 4 can sometimes. If it couldn't it wouldn't be worth a bean.
But why should Chernobyl be paid for via Sky, or Game of Thrones, by those who want it . . . or great Netflix dramas including The Crown on Netflix [incidentally not my pick and I've not watched it but many have and it seems fitting in your vein of examples] . . . or via commercials like Downton Abbey . . . but I need to pay taxes so you can watch Killing Eve even if I don't?
Why do I pay taxes so you can watch Go-Jetters while my daughters watch Doc McStuffins?
I'm not arguing the BBC is terrible. It clearly isn't. It should be paid for by those who want it same as all its rivals are one way or another.
Game of Thrones is pants. I watched a little bit of it and realised it is fantasy for people who don't get fantasy - in the same way Star Trek is Sci for people who don't get science fiction, and Star Wars is for those who will never get it.
Oh, and Go Jetters is British not American rubbish.
I couldn't care less if what my kids watch is American or British. I'm not and never have been a nativist
Never having watched Go Jetters I can't comment on if it is rubbish or not. But Doc McStuffins is Irish as well as American if that means anything to you. And its not rubbish.
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
REMAIN means a rerun of 2016 and will fuel an endless narrative of betrayal. REMAIN may well be the best option economically, but the country has voted to leave.
Out of interest, why do you feel the need to put remain in capitals?
Rory is right, the only viable Brexit is via the WA, and the only thing up for negotiation is the Political Declaration. There is scope there to win over other parties. In this the SNP perhaps matter more than Labour to Rory.
Stewart appears to be the only candidate who accepts that a) the EU isn't going to renegotiate the WA, and b) the government does not have a majority. So even if you think he's a bit wet, it really doesn't matter, as he's the only candidate dealing with reality, the others are a just a bunch of chancers.
But he isn’t dealing with whole reality. He thinks he can find a majority where May couldn’t without offering anything new.
Unfortunately so. MV3 was the final hope that sufficient ERGers and Labour 'moderates' might come on board, and it was technically pretty close, at least compared to where it started out, but it was just too much. Everyone is now focused on no deal, revoke/referendum, or insisting new negotiations will bear fruit, even those who did vote for the WA. However right it might be that that is the way to ensure Brexit (since a GE with no deal as the policy is a risk), being right on that won't make it pass.
Calling Labour MPs who voted for the WA as moderates is strange, in what way are they moderates? They just think, wrongly, they need to do it to save their seat
I put it in quotations because moderates is often how non-Corbynites, which includes many of the group of MPs thought to be at least possible Labour votes, sometimes get called. I don't see that there is anything especially moderate about them. And in any case, the ones who voted for it did so to save their seats, however right or wrong that is, or because they actually support it - I was thinking more of the ones who continually hint they might, but never did, because they were just wanting to look reasonable without ever acting.
I note the remarks of those who say they don't watch the BBC. So it must have been ghosts who were watching that Thatcher documentary, those EU documentaries, Steve Richard's politics stuff, the past election coverage, Fleabag, Killing Eve, those Attenborough docs, etc.
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
No doubt the BBC can make some decent stuff. As can Netflix, Sky and ITV. Even Channel 4 can sometimes. If it couldn't it wouldn't be worth a bean.
But why should Chernobyl be paid for via Sky, or Game of Thrones, by those who want it . . . or great Netflix dramas including The Crown on Netflix [incidentally not my pick and I've not watched it but many have and it seems fitting in your vein of examples] . . . or via commercials like Downton Abbey . . . but I need to pay taxes so you can watch Killing Eve even if I don't?
Why do I pay taxes so you can watch Go-Jetters while my daughters watch Doc McStuffins?
I'm not arguing the BBC is terrible. It clearly isn't. It should be paid for by those who want it same as all its rivals are one way or another.
Why do I pay taxes so that your* children can be educated when I have no children myself?
(*Or if yours are privately educated, as I suspect they may be, why do I pay taxes for the 93% of children who are state educated?)
The answer is because it adds value to the country.
Absolutely having education is valuable to this country, though we're not forced to pay for it in a license fee like we are for the BBC. And if an Education License Fee you had to pay to send a child to school cost nearly 3x that of sending a child to Eton cost I would have some concerns about that. The BBC costs nearly 3x the cost of Disneylife and more than 2x the cost of Netflix.
What does the BBC add to this country that can't be attained through other means?
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
REMAIN means a rerun of 2016 and will fuel an endless narrative of betrayal. REMAIN may well be the best option economically, but the country has voted to leave.
Out of interest, why do you feel the need to put remain in capitals?
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
REMAIN means a rerun of 2016 and will fuel an endless narrative of betrayal. REMAIN may well be the best option economically, but the country has voted to leave.
I know it’s stupid to blow my brains out but I voted for it three years ago and no matter what new info or change of opinion has happened I must blow my brains out!
Oh Benpointer I'm not sure why you felt the need to make a dig at suggesting my children will be privately educated. They're not FWIW. As I said my children are 3 and 5, the 5 year old is in reception class of a normal state school and the 3 year old perhaps unsurprisingly isn't actually at school yet as she's too young. She will be going to Nursery from September once she becomes eligible for free Nursery places.
Since AFAIK all nurseries are private but her place is paid for (as can be all 3 year olds) by the state, I'm not sure how you judge that with your judgemental overtones.
Stewart has very little chance of getting into the run off barring something extraordinary.
I think it’s going to be a hard slog to even get past the next round but his supporters are just sending out a message that they’ll cause trouble if Bozo tries to go for no deal .
If you add those to another group who are anti no deal but currently supporting other candidates aswell as several cabinet ministers and others below them then they’re going to be the new grouping to cause Johnson problems .
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
REMAIN means a rerun of 2016 and will fuel an endless narrative of betrayal. REMAIN may well be the best option economically, but the country has voted to leave.
I know it’s stupid to blow my brains out but I voted for it three years ago and no matter what new info or change of opinion has happened I must blow my brains out!
Maybe you shouldn't have held a poll on whether to blow your brains out or not?
No doubt the BBC can make some decent stuff. As can Netflix, Sky and ITV. Even Channel 4 can sometimes. If it couldn't it wouldn't be worth a bean.
But why should Chernobyl be paid for via Sky, or Game of Thrones, by those who want it . . . or great Netflix dramas including The Crown on Netflix [incidentally not my pick and I've not watched it but many have and it seems fitting in your vein of examples] . . . or via commercials like Downton Abbey . . . but I need to pay taxes so you can watch Killing Eve even if I don't?
Why do I pay taxes so you can watch Go-Jetters while my daughters watch Doc McStuffins?
I'm not arguing the BBC is terrible. It clearly isn't. It should be paid for by those who want it same as all its rivals are one way or another.
Why do I pay taxes so that your* children can be educated when I have no children myself?
(*Or if yours are privately educated, as I suspect they may be, why do I pay taxes for the 93% of children who are state educated?)
The answer is because it adds value to the country.
Absolutely having education is valuable to this country, though we're not forced to pay for it in a license fee like we are for the BBC. And if an Education License Fee you had to pay to send a child to school cost nearly 3x that of sending a child to Eton cost I would have some concerns about that. The BBC costs nearly 3x the cost of Disneylife and more than 2x the cost of Netflix.
What does the BBC add to this country that can't be attained through other means?
Come on - you know the BBC provides much mor than an equivalent to Disneylife... or Disneylife + Netflix for that matter! Think about the online site (first choice for news, spprt etc. for many people), the radio services, educational programming, etc.
As it happens, I agree we should not pay the BBC as a licence fee, it should be paid for out of general taxation, like education.
The point I would make is that the BBC is a globally respected voice of Britain that adds immesurably to our soft power and cultural influence.
The Tories seem intent on trashing it, egged on by privately owned media corporations who see the BBC's demise as their potential profit gain. Is there anything of value that the Conservatives want to, you know, actually conserve?
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
REMAIN means a rerun of 2016 and will fuel an endless narrative of betrayal. REMAIN may well be the best option economically, but the country has voted to leave.
I know it’s stupid to blow my brains out but I voted for it three years ago and no matter what new info or change of opinion has happened I must blow my brains out!
Maybe you shouldn't have held a poll on whether to blow your brains out or not?
A referendum choice between Common Market 2.0 and hard Brexit - no REMAIN option.
Common Market 2.0 isn't available, hard brexit is undefined and probably puts you back where you started, and parliament probably wouldn't vote for a referendum without a Remain option.
Why on earth would you not have a remain option? Remain is the best option economically, It is like not taking the best offer when you sell something for some reason. Brexit was an unquantifiable action until we actually went through the process of Article 50. We have discovered that Brexit is less good than Remain....
REMAIN means a rerun of 2016 and will fuel an endless narrative of betrayal. REMAIN may well be the best option economically, but the country has voted to leave.
I know it’s stupid to blow my brains out but I voted for it three years ago and no matter what new info or change of opinion has happened I must blow my brains out!
Maybe you shouldn't have held a poll on whether to blow your brains out or not?
Well economically we did and maybe one day you will realize that there is nothing for the ordinary person to gain out of leaving the Eu. It will change nothing for them or for a large majority of the population apart from being poorer.
Oh Benpointer I'm not sure why you felt the need to make a dig at suggesting my children will be privately educated. They're not FWIW. As I said my children are 3 and 5, the 5 year old is in reception class of a normal state school and the 3 year old perhaps unsurprisingly isn't actually at school yet as she's too young. She will be going to Nursery from September once she becomes eligible for free Nursery places.
Since AFAIK all nurseries are private but her place is paid for (as can be all 3 year olds) by the state, I'm not sure how you judge that with your judgemental overtones.
I apologise. I just recognised that my argument about my taxes paying for education of others' children (which I wholeheartedly support btw) could be undermined somehwat if you came back and said your children were at Eton or similar, so my weren't paying for them.
Comments
7 or 8 maybe? They're all on here...
Raab: Stephen Metcalfe.
Stewart: Tobias Ellwood, Margot James.
Gove: David Mundell.
Johnson: David Evenett, Andrew Griffiths, Esther McVey, Ben Bradley, Andrew Lewer.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
That's even worse...
So what is he going to offer that May didn’t. Remember to pass the WA he needs opposition votes, the DUP and the ERG.
The bottom line is that Rory has his own unicorns.
Why on earth are they on tv anyway?
"Why on earth are they on tv anyway?"
Because Game of Thrones has finished.
2. They have their hustings this week.
Not sure why he ever thought this was a good idea . He can’t argue for more sovereignty and at the same time argue to shut down parliament .
And, lest we forget, Chernobyl, possibly the greatest limited-episode 21st century serial (fight me!), was a HBO/BBC co-production
[I would also put in a word for "Years and Years", but I don't think everybody's watching that]
Endless nitpicking will not alter the fact that the outcome is like the flip of an un-faceted two sided coin: either revoke or make something like a complete break.
I fear that should Boris (who talks about the sanctity of the public will expressed in the referendum, but has changed his view as egoism dictated) be in charge something like a complete break may happen.
[Oh God he's walking thru a forest of silver birches. GET YOUR FACE OFF MY SCREEN MAN, I WANT TO SEE MERCURY!]
Today I think we’re heading towards a messy General Election. This election determines whether the Tories enter that election on a hard or soft Brexit ticket.
A fudge beyond Oct 31 is looking hard to sustain in the Commons.
My children are girls ages 3 and 5 so we've had kids programs on for the last five years and they've very rarely watched BBC. For cheaper than the TV tax you can pay for both Netflix and Disneylife.
On Disney my kids love Doc McStuffins [also a fun medical-based program], Sophia the First, DuckTales, Goldie and Bear, Mickey Mouse, PJ Masks, Puppy Dog Pals and basically the entire back catalogue of hundreds of movies including almost every animated classic.
On Netflix there is an entire Childrens category that include more shows than I could name. They like Doctor Seuss, Paw Patrol, Peppa Pig, Monster Pets, Luna Petunia and more.
On Freeview there are even more channels that can be watched for free paid by advertising. If we are away and stuck with Freeview my kids would rather watch Pop Jr. They like Alvin and the Chipmunks, Barbie, Trolls, Littlest Pet Shop, Pokemon and more
The examples I've given have a distinct female/preschool bias because of the age of my kids but there is something out there for everyone.
Quite frankly between commercial terrestial TV like Pop and cheaper alternative subscriptions like Disneylife and Netflix (both combined cheaper than BBC) there is far more variety for children than simply 2 channels.
On terrestial there is far more commercial than just that and including Disney and Netflix let alone other sources there is much, much, much more. Many of them broadcasting right now too. Yes in an ideal world children should be asleep but tell that to a jetlagged child, a teething infant or other examples when nighttime broadcasts work.
But why should Chernobyl be paid for via Sky, or Game of Thrones, by those who want it . . . or great Netflix dramas including The Crown on Netflix [incidentally not my pick and I've not watched it but many have and it seems fitting in your vein of examples] . . . or via commercials like Downton Abbey . . . but I need to pay taxes so you can watch Killing Eve even if I don't?
Why do I pay taxes so you can watch Go-Jetters while my daughters watch Doc McStuffins?
I'm not arguing the BBC is terrible. It clearly isn't. It should be paid for by those who want it same as all its rivals are one way or another.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics
Given two of his original supporters are now backing Stewart not sure that his Bozo endorsement will mean much .
I do think you do the BBC a massive disservice. I have argued repeatedly on here that their funding model is borken in the long term, and that splatting band-aids onto it is not going to work. However I also believe that the lience fee - for me - is great value for money, and there's no way the competitors are the same value.
You evidently differ.
Are we supposed to airbrush out of history house price inflation and mickey mouse mortgages under the last Labour government?
Oh, and Go Jetters is British not American rubbish.
Since then I’ve backed and laid everyone quite nicely in small size, but BJ is a loser for me atm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/16/exclusive-conservative-donors-open-secret-talks-nigel-farage/
And I can pay nothing and have my kids watch Pop TV on free to air, while I watch ITV or Channel 4 for free . . . oh wait I can't I need to pay the £154.50 too even if I don't switch the BBC on.
Or I can pay £4.99 per month (£59.88 per annum) for DisneyLife and/or £5.99 per month (£71.88 per annum) for Netflix. Both combined come to £131.76 per annum. Except I still have to pay the BBC even if I don't want to watch it if I want to watch absolutely anything broadcast live.
I'm not suggesting you should be forced by law to pay for both Netflix and Disneylife [even though combined they cost less than the BBC] and I think if I did suggest that it would be unreasonable. So why is it unreasonable for me to suggest the BBC should be a choice for those who want it?
(*Or if yours are privately educated, as I suspect they may be, why do I pay taxes for the 93% of children who are state educated?)
The answer is because it adds value to the country.
Never having watched Go Jetters I can't comment on if it is rubbish or not. But Doc McStuffins is Irish as well as American if that means anything to you. And its not rubbish.
Portillo?! How was that ever going to happen?
What does the BBC add to this country that can't be attained through other means?
https://twitter.com/StGeorgeOfEU/status/1140369175921274880
Since AFAIK all nurseries are private but her place is paid for (as can be all 3 year olds) by the state, I'm not sure how you judge that with your judgemental overtones.
I think it’s going to be a hard slog to even get past the next round but his supporters are just sending out a message that they’ll cause trouble if Bozo tries to go for no deal .
If you add those to another group who are anti no deal but currently supporting other candidates aswell as several cabinet ministers and others below them then they’re going to be the new grouping to cause Johnson problems .
As it happens, I agree we should not pay the BBC as a licence fee, it should be paid for out of general taxation, like education.
The point I would make is that the BBC is a globally respected voice of Britain that adds immesurably to our soft power and cultural influence.
The Tories seem intent on trashing it, egged on by privately owned media corporations who see the BBC's demise as their potential profit gain. Is there anything of value that the Conservatives want to, you know, actually conserve?
I apologise. I just recognised that my argument about my taxes paying for education of others' children (which I wholeheartedly support btw) could be undermined somehwat if you came back and said your children were at Eton or similar, so my weren't paying for them.
None of my business anyway - apologies.