Probably just a reflection of the fact that urban liberals prefer Rory. People who wouldn't vote Tory in a million years.
Urban liberals used to be a key demographic for the Tories. When did they stop caring?
Urban liberals didn't use to vote Tory in any significant numbers, but it probably is true to say that a lot more Conservatives used to live in urban areas than do now.
No doubt Hancock has been promised C of E or something of that order! I have always said Hancock comes across as being untrustworthy given his previous iterations and his sudden conversion to Boris 'fuck business' Johnson.
Regarding Rory, you wouldn't think that Tory MPs would be embarrassed to admit to supporting him. But in that case, why have only about half the 19 people who voted for him on Thursday publicly endorsed him?
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 .
Boris has to be planning an early election despite the debacle of 2017. It may be his first decision as PM.
His first real decision will be 'I'm off to the EU to give em what for tally ho'. Then it will be 'The dastards dared to refuse me, I mean us. Sadly, I must have a GE to overcome parliament blocking the only option left'
Probably just a reflection of the fact that urban liberals prefer Rory. People who wouldn't vote Tory in a million years.
Urban liberals used to be a key demographic for the Tories. When did they stop caring?
Urban liberals didn't use to vote Tory in any significant numbers, but it probably is true to say that a lot more Conservatives used to live in urban areas than do now.
They did, but it's just that urban liberals have evolved into something the Tories don't welcome.
OMG listening to Brexit Groundhog Day on the Westminster Hour. Liz Truss wants to keep no Deal on the table. What she means is she supports a No Deal Brexit. At the same time she wants a time-limited backstop. The EU won't agree to this since Backstop Means Backstop.
Boris has to be planning an early election despite the debacle of 2017. It may be his first decision as PM.
His first real decision will be 'I'm off to the EU to give em what for tally ho'. Then it will be 'The dastards dared to refuse me, I mean us. Sadly, I must have a GE to overcome parliament blocking the only option left'
Then it'll be "But if I have an election I might have to appear on TV and people will SEE me ..."
No doubt Hancock has been promised C of E or something of that order! I have always said Hancock comes across as being untrustworthy given his previous iterations and his sudden conversion to Boris 'fuck business' Johnson.
When Boris promised him C of E, he meant as the next Archbishop of Canterbury......
Regarding Rory, you wouldn't think that Tory MPs would be embarrassed to admit to supporting him. But in that case, why have only about half the 19 people who voted for him on Thursday publicly endorsed him?
They'd prefer not to be deselected by their local associations?
OMG listening to Brexit Groundhog Day on the Westminster Hour. Liz Truss wants to keep no Deal on the table. What she means is she supports a No Deal Brexit. At the same time she wants a time-limited backstop. The EU won't agree to this since Backstop Means Backstop.
I'm sure there was a rumour that the EU are now considering a time limited backstop
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.
You evidently differ.
If the license fee is great value for you then you are paying less than the market rate
Implicitly the @Philip_Thompson ‘s of the world are subsidising your viewing
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
No doubt Hancock has been promised C of E or something of that order! I have always said Hancock comes across as being untrustworthy given his previous iterations and his sudden conversion to Boris 'fuck business' Johnson.
When Boris promised him C of E, he meant as the next Archbishop of Canterbury......
Mind you just because Hancock has publicly backed Johnson, it does not mean Hancock has to vote for him in private. I could just see Hancock voting for Hunt or someone like that! Hancock strikes me as being very duplicitous...
OMG listening to Brexit Groundhog Day on the Westminster Hour. Liz Truss wants to keep no Deal on the table. What she means is she supports a No Deal Brexit. At the same time she wants a time-limited backstop. The EU won't agree to this since Backstop Means Backstop.
I'm sure there was a rumour that the EU are now considering a time limited backstop
Maybe they are (because the UK govt is desperate to get the WA passed) but it'd be meaningless, since if we got to the end of the time limit without anything having been resolved, the time limit would be extended. So I don't think any MPs would be fooled into voting for the WA if that was the only change.
OMG listening to Brexit Groundhog Day on the Westminster Hour. Liz Truss wants to keep no Deal on the table. What she means is she supports a No Deal Brexit. At the same time she wants a time-limited backstop. The EU won't agree to this since Backstop Means Backstop.
I'm sure there was a rumour that the EU are now considering a time limited backstop
Maybe they are (because the UK govt is desperate to get the WA passed) but it'd be meaningless, since if we got to the end of the time limit without anything having been resolved, the time limit would be extended. So I don't think any MPs would be fooled into voting for the WA if that was the only change.
The same would be true if there was no backstop whatsoever and just a transition. Once we reached the end of transition if there was no alternative ready yet we would just extend the transition.
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
Anyhoo, talking of the BBC, I'm trying to watch "The Planets", but Professor Brian Cox is going the full Philomena Cunk. Does it get better?
[Oh God he's walking thru a forest of silver birches. GET YOUR FACE OFF MY SCREEN MAN, I WANT TO SEE MERCURY!]
I find the non-linear scripts that repeat the same thing 2 or 3 times in an episode really annoying.
I'm really interested in the Planets and there is some fantastic footage. But I agree with you about the scripting and editing. It is really poor and boring. I literally nodded off during two of the episodes.
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
Anyhoo, talking of the BBC, I'm trying to watch "The Planets", but Professor Brian Cox is going the full Philomena Cunk. Does it get better?
[Oh God he's walking thru a forest of silver birches. GET YOUR FACE OFF MY SCREEN MAN, I WANT TO SEE MERCURY!]
I find the non-linear scripts that repeat the same thing 2 or 3 times in an episode really annoying.
I'm really interested in the Planets and there is some fantastic footage. But I agree with you about the scripting and editing. It is really poor and boring. I literally nodded off during two of the episodes.
I just wish they'd flag up the footage which is GCI - I think quite a few viewers will think it's all real footage.
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
People have been predicting the death of the BBC or the privatisation for as long as I can remember. Certainly as far back as the 1980s which is roughly 30 years ago + now!
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]
Didn't watch, didn't watch, Sky News for GE (Thrasher gives much better insight), nope, nope, nope and nope.
I honestly can't tell you the last time I watched a show on BBC.
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
People have been predicting the death of the BBC or the privatisation for as long as I can remember. Certainly as far back as the 1980s which is roughly 30 years ago + now!
I guess so.
Just feeling a bit old these days... things that in my youth I imagined were permanent have disappeared or are disappearing.
Anyhoo, talking of the BBC, I'm trying to watch "The Planets", but Professor Brian Cox is going the full Philomena Cunk. Does it get better?
[Oh God he's walking thru a forest of silver birches. GET YOUR FACE OFF MY SCREEN MAN, I WANT TO SEE MERCURY!]
I find the non-linear scripts that repeat the same thing 2 or 3 times in an episode really annoying.
I'm really interested in the Planets and there is some fantastic footage. But I agree with you about the scripting and editing. It is really poor and boring. I literally nodded off during two of the episodes.
I just wish they'd flag up the footage which is GCI - I think quite a few viewers will think it's all real footage.
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]
Didn't watch, didn't watch, Sky News for GE (Thrasher gives much better insight), nope, nope, nope and nope.
I honestly can't tell you the last time I watched a show on BBC.
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
People have been predicting the death of the BBC or the privatisation for as long as I can remember. Certainly as far back as the 1980s which is roughly 30 years ago + now!
There was no internet / YouTube / Netflix / Amazon etc etc etc 30 years ago.
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]
Didn't watch, didn't watch, Sky News for GE (Thrasher gives much better insight), nope, nope, nope and nope.
I honestly can't tell you the last time I watched a show on BBC.
You should open your mind a bit more!
That McMafia thing was the last "big" thing I watched on BBC, and although it started off well, it was utter shit by the end. It just doesn't hold a candle up to the golden age of telly I have seen elsewhere.
In terms of "open my mind", I listen to lots of podcasts and YouTube has huge amount of original content these days for the intellectually curious.
I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
The BBC could save a lot of money by getting rid of BBC1 and concentrating on BBC2, BBC4, Radio 4, Five Live and BBC6 music.
BBC Three decision reminds me a lot like this change in OAP free licences. They should have just bitten the bullet and got rid, instead they found a way of the worst of both worlds by keeping it by still costing a load of money and in the case of BBC Three nobody watches.
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
People have been predicting the death of the BBC or the privatisation for as long as I can remember. Certainly as far back as the 1980s which is roughly 30 years ago + now!
I guess so.
Just feeling a bit old these days... things that in my youth I imagined were permanent have disappeared or are disappearing.
I could list them but it would be too depressing.
Indeed, the world and things we identify with all change. Just imagine how much the world has changed in 100 years. I think a 100 year old assuming they are healthy could remember before TV and probably radio too. Many things will have become obsolete. Cutting edge technology becomes a museum piece. It is funny to think the technology we have now, if the human race exists in time to come, will seem basic and unsophisticated in the future!
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
People have been predicting the death of the BBC or the privatisation for as long as I can remember. Certainly as far back as the 1980s which is roughly 30 years ago + now!
There was no internet / YouTube / Netflix / Amazon etc etc etc 30 years ago.
I think Sky are as in as much trouble.
I am seriously questioning why I pay so much for Sky when I watch more of Netflix, Amazon and YouTube.
I am seriously questioning why I pay so much for Sky when I watch more of Netflix, Amazon and YouTube.
Terrestial tv I hardly ever watch.
Live sport is the only reason for me...and as I said down thread, da kidz just illegally stream it all.
I think they are in big trouble unless the market adapts and becomes a lot more like Spotify. None of this nonsense of no 3pm kick-offs live, or only 1 live game, when the rest of the world can choose from all of them.
The likes of NFL have got it right, with Red Zone and the fact you can subscribe and choose to watch any game, whenever it kicks off. With that option available (if priced correctly), why mess around with dodgy websites etc, when its all right there for you every Sunday, for 7 ad-free hrs.
I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
I don't use the M62.
Why are you comparing the BBC to a vital Northern transport artery?
I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
I don't use the M62.
Why are you comparing the BBC to a vital Northern transport artery?
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
People have been predicting the death of the BBC or the privatisation for as long as I can remember. Certainly as far back as the 1980s which is roughly 30 years ago + now!
There was no internet / YouTube / Netflix / Amazon etc etc etc 30 years ago.
I think Sky are as in as much trouble.
Well all technologies have life cycles but one must not confuse a broadcasting organisation for a product. It is more a broadcasting platform and that will evolve overtime. The BBC do make money selling programs abroad but the internet being the platform it is offers the chance for people to get it free by means that may not be legal and breach the rules of distribution or copyright.
Sky is an interesting one as they have tried to make themselves into a production hub as well as a broadcaster. But like all business a time will come when the next thing supersedes them. I always wonder why these billionaires with organisations that are entering maturity don't sell up. I would and invest it in real estate or something that would preserve the wealth and likely accumulate further wealth at much lower risk.
Well all technologies have life cycles but one must not confuse a broadcasting organisation for a product. It is more a broadcasting platform and that will evolve overtime. The BBC do make money selling programs abroad but the internet being the platform it is offers the chance for people to get it free by means that may not be legal and breach the rules of distribution or copyright.
Sky is an interesting one as they have tried to make themselves into a production hub as well as a broadcaster. But like all business a time will come when the next thing supersedes them. I always wonder why these billionaires with organisations that are entering maturity don't sell up. I would and invest it in real estate or something that would preserve the wealth and likely accumulate further wealth at much lower risk.
Errhhh that is exactly what Uncle Rupert has done. I completely understand why Disney wanted Sky, that would have worked perfectly for their integration.
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.
I cannot abide Johnson and see him as a malign human being , but Thatcher and Heath did not debate in this way in 1975 - neither did Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton. Again , in 1990 there were no such debates between Major, Heseltine and Hurd.
No doubt Hancock has been promised C of E or something of that order! I have always said Hancock comes across as being untrustworthy given his previous iterations and his sudden conversion to Boris 'fuck business' Johnson.
He comes over as an utter, utter f***wit. Hopefully Boris feels there's only room for one world-champion buffoon around the cabinet table.
I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
I don't use the M62.
Why are you comparing the BBC to a vital Northern transport artery?
He was giving a precedent for somebody paying taxes to support something from which they derive no (obvious) benefit. Taxes paid to benefit specific people/causes ("hypothecated taxes") do exist but they are not as common as general taxes. Tax is a present (extracted by gunpoint ) to the Government to spend on Britain and the British, not specific Britons.
@Philip_Thompson contends that as he derives no (obvious) benefit from the BBC he should not pay for it. Fair enough. My view is that the UK requires a national broadcaster as a national security issue: if we do not present ourselves to the world then others will represent us, and not necessarily as we would like, so I disagree.
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?
Quite frankly I don't. I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
As I said elsewhere, it would be better treated as a national service and paid for from general taxation.
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
People have been predicting the death of the BBC or the privatisation for as long as I can remember. Certainly as far back as the 1980s which is roughly 30 years ago + now!
There was no internet / YouTube / Netflix / Amazon etc etc etc 30 years ago.
I think Sky are as in as much trouble.
I am seriously questioning why I pay so much for Sky when I watch more of Netflix, Amazon and YouTube.
Terrestial tv I hardly ever watch.
I gave up my Sky 6/7 years ago. Have a look at NowTV to see if it suits your Sky needs, it is basically pay per view, by the day, weekend or month for sky.
On the BBC, I've just started watching Years and Years. It's really quite good, Black Mirror but believable.
It is good. Difficult trick to pull off, the mix of futurism politics and soap, but they have managed it.
"Years and Years" works even better when you realise it's a Doctor-lite episode of Doctor Who, around series 4. Russell T. Davies wrote a very similar episode "Turn Left" in 2008, and given that Davies is showrunner and Murray Gold is composer, the similarities are delicious.
The BBC could save a lot of money by getting rid of BBC1 and concentrating on BBC2, BBC4, Radio 4, Five Live and BBC6 music.
BBC Three decision reminds me a lot like this change in OAP free licences. They should have just bitten the bullet and got rid, instead they found a way of the worst of both worlds by keeping it by still costing a load of money and in the case of BBC Three nobody watches.
BBC Three works though as a trial ground for new talent and many of its biggest critical hits started out there. Notably, Fleabag, People Just Do Nothing, Killed By My Debt, Uncle, and most recently, Back to Life. It's those and fairly low budget youth oriented docs, which won't get huge viewing figures but can be expanded upon if they strike a chord.
It's a success story, BBC Three going online. They cut the budget by more than £30 million, dropped the stuff that cost a lot but could be watched elsewhere - panel shows and bought in stuff like Family Guy - and focused on programme making. Those shows that are successful then either transfer straight to BBC Two or, if it's too online, they give the talent a new vehicle that is. Like with Stacey Dooley - who is pretty well known amongst youngsters thanks to her BBC Three shows.
It's arguably doing exactly what the BBC should be doing, in investing in the kind of new shows that don't get made elsewhere, giving them a limited platform they wouldn't otherwise get, and then taking it primetime on the big two channels if it finds an audience or generates buzz.
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
Yep. Boris is uniting the Tory Party by telling each side exactly what it wants to hear. At least he has the sense to do it in private, unlike May.
Raab: Stephen Metcalfe. Stewart: Tobias Ellwood, Margot James. Gove: David Mundell. Johnson: David Evenett, Andrew Griffiths, Esther McVey, Ben Bradley, Andrew Lewer.
Bad news for Hunt, not one new endorsement and Hancock endorses Boris tonight with the rest of his backers not going with him to camp Johnson likely to back Stewart.
Bad news for Javid too who also gets no new backers and will likely be knocked out on Tuesday
What's so special about the BBC? I can watch the news on Sky via Freeview.
The Beeb is far more than that. It is part of our shared national identity. Just to take one example - their archive. It's a treasure trove. If the BBC were to disappear and all we had were commercial enterprises producing media product for maximized profit, we would be much the poorer for it, culturally, as a country, as a society.
On the BBC, I've just started watching Years and Years. It's really quite good, Black Mirror but believable.
It is good. Difficult trick to pull off, the mix of futurism politics and soap, but they have managed it.
"Years and Years" works even better when you realise it's a Doctor-lite episode of Doctor Who, around series 4. Russell T. Davies wrote a very similar episode "Turn Left" in 2008, and given that Davies is showrunner and Murray Gold is composer, the similarities are delicious.
A perfect example of a forced fee to wage a ruthless culture war against anyone that doesn’t share london’s view of the world.
BBC Radio is good. R4, R5L, Sports Extra and 6 Music, for me, are worth the licence fee. There is no comparable commercial equivalent. Edit: Ooops. I see you made the very same point earlier. Well then, I agree with you. . The problem with BBC 4 is, I so rarely watch TV, I never know what is on.
What's so special about the BBC? I can watch the news on Sky via Freeview.
The Beeb is far more than that. It is part of our shared national identity. Just to take one example - their archive. It's a treasure trove. If the BBC were to disappear and all we had were commercial enterprises producing media product for maximized profit, we would be much the poorer for it, culturally, as a country, as a society.
What's so special about the BBC? I can watch the news on Sky via Freeview.
The Beeb is far more than that. It is part of our shared national identity. Just to take one example - their archive. It's a treasure trove. If the BBC were to disappear and all we had were commercial enterprises producing media product for maximized profit, we would be much the poorer for it, culturally, as a country, as a society.
He has certainly had the best campaign but sensible people are not choosing the next PM. No, it is the swivel eyed members of the Tory party...
So we are told... although most of the self-confessed Tory members on here seem to be anti-Boris.
Sadly, I am not sure Tory PB-ers are at all representative of the wider party.
I'm a Tory member and certainly backing Boris, indeed Boris got more votes than all the other candidates combined in our Association's straw poll last Friday
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 e.
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.
Not true, both EUref2 and revoke got fewer votes in the indicative votes than May's Deal got at MV3 and the Commons failed to vote to try and bring in legislation to stop No Deal last week
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
Yep. Boris is uniting the Tory Party by telling each side exactly what it wants to hear. At least he has the sense to do it in private, unlike May.
The Bozo saga will end in tears . May was dull and robotic , the Tories saw her as just getting the job done , no bells and whistles .
Many Tories have built Johnson up to be the Great Messiah , the showman who can deliver.
When he doesn’t deliver the let down will be huge and the aftermath brutal .
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
The UK is the EU's largest export destination too and Boris still wants a Deal just with a time limit or technical solution to the backstop, if not he will go to No Deal
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
Yep. Boris is uniting the Tory Party by telling each side exactly what it wants to hear. At least he has the sense to do it in private, unlike May.
The Bozo saga will end in tears . May was dull and robotic , the Tories saw her as just getting the job done , no bells and whistles .
Many Tories have built Johnson up to be the Great Messiah , the showman who can deliver.
When he doesn’t deliver the let down will be huge and the aftermath brutal .
It's quite something when Labour supporters accuse other parties of promoting a populist Great Messiah to the leadership. To coin a phrase - you started it!
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
Yep. Boris is uniting the Tory Party by telling each side exactly what it wants to hear. At least he has the sense to do it in private, unlike May.
The Bozo saga will end in tears . May was dull and robotic , the Tories saw her as just getting the job done , no bells and whistles .
Many Tories have built Johnson up to be the Great Messiah , the showman who can deliver.
When he doesn’t deliver the let down will be huge and the aftermath brutal .
Yes. What is notable about May is how little feeling she has evoked by going. Few tears from her supporters, little anger from her opponents. A general agreement that she tried, and was found wanting. Can't see Boris ending in such a fashion.
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
The UK is the EU's largest export destination too and Boris still wants a Deal just with a time limit or technical solution to the backstop, if not he will go to No Deal
A backstop with a time limit isn’t a backstop . And if the Tories are so confident of tech solutions what’s to fear from any backstop . The latter question is one the media never ask.
"Years and Years" works even better when you realise it's a Doctor-lite episode of Doctor Who, around series 4. Russell T. Davies wrote a very similar episode "Turn Left" in 2008, and given that Davies is showrunner and Murray Gold is composer, the similarities are delicious.
No, didn't realize that. I haven't done Doctor Who since I was a kid. I like the characters in Years. 'Viv Rook' is horribly believable albeit a caricature. Cross between Katie Hopkins and Heidi Allen. Sort of. I particularly like how they make no effort to make the cast look older as time passes. Everyone stays exactly the same. Rather than a flaw, this works, oddly. For me it does, anyway. It's a very good piece of work. Was going to say original - but that was before I knew it was a Dr Who rip-off.
Raab: Stephen Metcalfe. Stewart: Tobias Ellwood, Margot James. Gove: David Mundell. Johnson: David Evenett, Andrew Griffiths, Esther McVey, Ben Bradley, Andrew Lewer.
Bad news for Hunt, not one new endorsement and Hancock endorses Boris tonight with the rest of his backers not going with him to camp Johnson likely to back Stewart.
Bad news for Javid too who also gets no new backers and will likely be knocked out on Tuesday
I think Javid will fall short. Can Raab and Stewart muster 33 votes on Tuesday? It's going to be very tight.
What's so special about the BBC? I can watch the news on Sky via Freeview.
The Beeb is far more than that. It is part of our shared national identity. Just to take one example - their archive. It's a treasure trove. If the BBC were to disappear and all we had were commercial enterprises producing media product for maximized profit, we would be much the poorer for it, culturally, as a country, as a society.
On the BBC, I've just started watching Years and Years. It's really quite good, Black Mirror but believable.
It is good. Difficult trick to pull off, the mix of futurism politics and soap, but they have managed it.
"Years and Years" works even better when you realise it's a Doctor-lite episode of Doctor Who, around series 4. Russell T. Davies wrote a very similar episode "Turn Left" in 2008, and given that Davies is showrunner and Murray Gold is composer, the similarities are delicious.
A perfect example of a forced fee to wage a ruthless culture war against anyone that doesn’t share london’s view of the world.
Katie Hopkins - sorry Viv Rook - as played by Emma Thompson is suitably chilling in the show.
Still you get the message - vote for the Brexit party and within 15 years the poor and homeless will be relocated to concentration camps and the rich will have their spare bedrooms commandeered to house flooding and dirty bomb victims from Manchester. You have been suitably warned!
We are four star - striving to be five - suitably Italian!
I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
I don't use the M62.
You do. You'll buy things that travel along it in the course of their manufacture. All the country's motorways and trunk roads are vital for commerce, defence, etc. Services that you use rely on that that motorway. Somehow or other, you have to pay for your part of its upkeep, whether or not you actually travel along it.
But that doesn't matter. The BBC isn't like that. It's an anachronism, not a vital piece of infrastructure. And as much as it pains me to agree with the right-wing scum on this site, they're right about the licence fee. It needs scrapped.
On the BBC, I've just started watching Years and Years. It's really quite good, Black Mirror but believable.
It is good. Difficult trick to pull off, the mix of futurism politics and soap, but they have managed it.
"Years and Years" works even better when you realise it's a Doctor-lite episode of Doctor Who, around series 4. Russell T. Davies wrote a very similar episode "Turn Left" in 2008, and given that Davies is showrunner and Murray Gold is composer, the similarities are delicious.
A perfect example of a forced fee to wage a ruthless culture war against anyone that doesn’t share london’s view of the world.
I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
I don't use the M62.
You do. You'll buy things that travel along it in the course of their manufacture. All the country's motorways and trunk roads are vital for commerce, defence, etc. Services that you use rely on that that motorway. Somehow or other, you have to pay for your part of its upkeep, whether or not you actually travel along it.
But that doesn't matter. The BBC isn't like that. It's an anachronism, not a vital piece of infrastructure. And as much as it pains me to agree with the right-wing scum on this site, they're right about the licence fee. It needs scrapped.
I think the BBC personally provides much, much, much LESS than Disneylife+Netflix. While costing more. If you disagree then that is your CHOICE but why do you insist on making my choices for me? Don't you believe in the right to choose?
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
I don't use the M62.
Why are you comparing the BBC to a vital Northern transport artery?
He was giving a precedent for somebody paying taxes to support something from which they derive no (obvious) benefit. Taxes paid to benefit specific people/causes ("hypothecated taxes") do exist but they are not as common as general taxes. Tax is a present (extracted by gunpoint ) to the Government to spend on Britain and the British, not specific Britons.
@Philip_Thompson contends that as he derives no (obvious) benefit from the BBC he should not pay for it. Fair enough. My view is that the UK requires a national broadcaster as a national security issue: if we do not present ourselves to the world then others will represent us, and not necessarily as we would like, so I disagree.
"National security"
How is Homes under the hammer a national security matter? Or EastEnders? Or Pointless?
Britain presents itself to the world very well without the BBC already. Music and popular culture from all walks of life are dominated with British influence. We punch above our weight very well, whether it be arts, literature, music or TVs and Movies.
What's so special about the BBC? I can watch the news on Sky via Freeview.
The Beeb is far more than that. It is part of our shared national identity. Just to take one example - their archive. It's a treasure trove. If the BBC were to disappear and all we had were commercial enterprises producing media product for maximized profit, we would be much the poorer for it, culturally, as a country, as a society.
How is it that countries without state broadcasters and licence fees are able to having thriving cultures?
Comments
Interesting market on PredictIt (I’m US based, so no Betfair access sadly).
Well, I think you might see that a bit more in future episodes
Just a wild guess.
Ah.
Come to think of it, maybe it was Boris's wife, not Rory's ...
Gyimah, Gyimah, Gyimah a man after midnight, surely?
Implicitly the @Philip_Thompson ‘s of the world are subsidising your viewing
Radio: I listen to Heart, which is paid for by Commercial broadcasting. Or I stream music from my subscription to Google Play Music. I don't listen to BBC. Let BBC Radio listeners pay for it if they like it or play adverts, there's no harm in that. Why should I have to pay a TV tax so that Mr Meeks Radio 4 listeners can lie in bed without commercials playing? Or pay a subscription for what they want to listen to.
Online site: Has adverts across the globe. Why can't it here?
I want to conserve liberties. Like choice. If you choose the BBC you should pay for it. If you don't you shouldn't. Free choice.
Sadly, I am not sure Tory PB-ers are at all representative of the wider party.
Sam Gyimah
Hope before the No Deal come
In reality, the BBC will probably be allowed to wither and die and I think the country will be poorer for it.
Only for the head strong
Makes you wanna dance
Move your feet
Puts you in a trance
Keeps you on your feet
Sajieeeed
Sajieeeed
I honestly can't tell you the last time I watched a show on BBC.
Just feeling a bit old these days... things that in my youth I imagined were permanent have disappeared or are disappearing.
I could list them but it would be too depressing.
I think Sky are as in as much trouble.
In terms of "open my mind", I listen to lots of podcasts and YouTube has huge amount of original content these days for the intellectually curious.
Terrestial tv I hardly ever watch.
I think they are in big trouble unless the market adapts and becomes a lot more like Spotify. None of this nonsense of no 3pm kick-offs live, or only 1 live game, when the rest of the world can choose from all of them.
The likes of NFL have got it right, with Red Zone and the fact you can subscribe and choose to watch any game, whenever it kicks off. With that option available (if priced correctly), why mess around with dodgy websites etc, when its all right there for you every Sunday, for 7 ad-free hrs.
Sky is an interesting one as they have tried to make themselves into a production hub as well as a broadcaster. But like all business a time will come when the next thing supersedes them. I always wonder why these billionaires with organisations that are entering maturity don't sell up. I would and invest it in real estate or something that would preserve the wealth and likely accumulate further wealth at much lower risk.
It trains UK talent. Night night.
Edit: Having re-read the header, I find out the true cost is 700 million. What's a factor of a thousand between friends?
@Philip_Thompson contends that as he derives no (obvious) benefit from the BBC he should not pay for it. Fair enough. My view is that the UK requires a national broadcaster as a national security issue: if we do not present ourselves to the world then others will represent us, and not necessarily as we would like, so I disagree.
It's a success story, BBC Three going online. They cut the budget by more than £30 million, dropped the stuff that cost a lot but could be watched elsewhere - panel shows and bought in stuff like Family Guy - and focused on programme making. Those shows that are successful then either transfer straight to BBC Two or, if it's too online, they give the talent a new vehicle that is. Like with Stacey Dooley - who is pretty well known amongst youngsters thanks to her BBC Three shows.
It's arguably doing exactly what the BBC should be doing, in investing in the kind of new shows that don't get made elsewhere, giving them a limited platform they wouldn't otherwise get, and then taking it primetime on the big two channels if it finds an audience or generates buzz.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/16/tom-watson-to-say-labour-must-adopt-clear-anti-brexit-stance-jeremy-corbyn
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
Bad news for Javid too who also gets no new backers and will likely be knocked out on Tuesday
Edit: Ooops. I see you made the very same point earlier. Well then, I agree with you.
Many Tories have built Johnson up to be the Great Messiah , the showman who can deliver.
When he doesn’t deliver the let down will be huge and the aftermath brutal .
Can't see Boris ending in such a fashion.
Still you get the message - vote for the Brexit party and within 15 years the poor and homeless will be relocated to concentration camps and the rich will have their spare bedrooms commandeered to house flooding and dirty bomb victims from Manchester. You have been suitably warned!
We are four star - striving to be five - suitably Italian!
Only Rory the Tory can save us now.
But that doesn't matter. The BBC isn't like that. It's an anachronism, not a vital piece of infrastructure. And as much as it pains me to agree with the right-wing scum on this site, they're right about the licence fee. It needs scrapped.
Welcome to PB btw.
How is Homes under the hammer a national security matter? Or EastEnders? Or Pointless?