What the data shows is that with FPTP the LibDems need a moderate Labour leader in order to maximise their own vote.
Its counter intuitive and depressing but probably right! The one government the country really doesnt want is far left, so when that is offered people will decisively accept any rubbish alternative so the LDs get squeezed.
Perhaps LDs and centrists need to become entryists into the main parties, the opposite of what has been happening?
The Guardian is reporting that a Conservative general election candidate has been accused of Islamophobia over her social media posts. According to the paper, Linden Kemkaran, a former BBC journalist who is standing in Bradford East, retweeted Islamophobic messages on Twitter.
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Given its brand, the BBC moving to a subscription model would be hugely beneficial to it - and its viewers: 1. It would be able to go into markets and borrow huge sums to develop its programming. 2. It would be able to remove its content from other platforms that show it now. 3. As a result, it would be able to offer lower subscription packages than its rivals. 4. It would be able to sell subscriptions globally.
In terms of UK soft power, a truly global BBC able to compete with the biggest of the US platforms would be huge. However, it would be quite likely to mean the BBC being even more dominant in the UK than it is now.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Trying to work out why Boris - normally good at empathy - refused to look at the photo. My theory is pretty simple, he worried it was a trick, to get him to look at something REALLY and personally embarrassing. Maybe a photo of one of his own kids?!
So he acts wary and defensive.
I do not believe he knew the photo and was too ashamed to view it. All he had to do was look at it and say Oh that's terrible, which in the end was what he did.
But he came across as shifty and sly. Not good.
You are joking right? Boris Johnson is one of the least empathetic politicians I have ever seen. Wanting to be loved and loving other people back are two entirely different things.
Empathy in politicians is like sincerity - it's good to have, but faking it is usually enough.
The double whammy is that not just are the Tories keeping more Remainers but those they lose are going mainly to the Lib Dems.
While Labour are not just losing more Leavers, more of them going direct to the Tories.
True. And, the Conservatives can probably afford such losses better than Labour, as they tend to be in affluent seats with very large Conservative majorities. If the Tory lead in Esher & Walton is cut from 23,000 to 5,000, it's still a Conservative seat in the Commons.
Sounds like we will have a big tory majority combined with loads of marginals for them to defend in 2024. The difficulty for the tories at that election will be half the marginals will be in affluent seats and half in post industrial struggling towns. I fail to see how they keep those parts of their coalition together.
The Blair approach? Win big enough first up to last for three terms?
I really hope not.
It's an unusual situation given the Tories have won in government for 9 years one way or another and a big win should not really happen. If it does it might be that big majority is not the firewall that Blairs was given the letters was first term.
It's amazing that the tories have managed to disassociate themselves from the last nine years whilst the LibDems have failed quite miserably to extricate themselves from culpability.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Anybody who has kids, know they all watch YouTube these days. Netflix and other streaming services are throwing mega bucks at productions for the adults. Disney+ now there for kids. The BBC will have to reform, and the licence fee in todays world is totally unenforceable, as you can't tie watching TV to a single physical moving picture box.
How we move forward from that will have to be debated. A tax on everybody regardless of tv or not or ads, or a bit of both, seems like the only way, other than total let them fight with everybody else.
Indeed. The BBC 'is' increasingly outdated, and pedestrian for newer broadcasters, and forms of broadcasting. There should be a review, and an update.
The BBC should be allowed to compete with Netflix, and Amazon, and the like, it can't at the moment.
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Let's hope it's a means of shifting the BBC to a proper subscription model as forcing the BBC to pay for the Over 75s was a cheap tax trick by Osbourne and should have been called out at the time for what it was.
A hypothecated 0.6% increase in income tax base rate would be fairer. The licence fee is both regressive and easily evaded.
Yes lets tax the workers again, and exempt the retired again.
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
I don't see why the over 75s shouldn't pay for their own TV licence. If anything the Over75s need to pay for much more in society.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Anybody who has kids, know they all watch YouTube these days. Netflix and other streaming services are throwing mega bucks at productions for the adults. Disney+ now there for kids. The BBC will have to reform, and the licence fee in todays world is totally unenforceable, as you can't tie watching TV to a single physical moving picture box.
How we move forward from that will have to be debated. A tax on everybody regardless of tv or not or ads, or a bit of both, seems like the only way, other than total let them fight with everybody else.
Indeed. The BBC 'is' increasingly outdated, and pedestrian for newer broadcasters, and forms of broadcasting. There should be a review, and an update.
The BBC should be allowed to compete with Netflix, and Amazon, and the like, it can't at the moment.
Havent they just launched a subscription service, Britbox? Written off already?
The Guardian is reporting that a Conservative general election candidate has been accused of Islamophobia over her social media posts. According to the paper, Linden Kemkaran, a former BBC journalist who is standing in Bradford East, retweeted Islamophobic messages on Twitter.
An Islamophobe in Bradford? I'm guessing we're not going to win there...
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Anybody who has kids, know they all watch YouTube these days. Netflix and other streaming services are throwing mega bucks at productions for the adults. Disney+ now there for kids. The BBC will have to reform, and the licence fee in todays world is totally unenforceable, as you can't tie watching TV to a single physical moving picture box.
How we move forward from that will have to be debated. A tax on everybody regardless of tv or not or ads, or a bit of both, seems like the only way, other than total let them fight with everybody else.
Indeed. The BBC 'is' increasingly outdated, and pedestrian for newer broadcasters, and forms of broadcasting. There should be a review, and an update.
The BBC should be allowed to compete with Netflix, and Amazon, and the like, it can't at the moment.
This is a fascinating read from the FT on the Netflix model, valuation, and mountainous debt. From October this year. https://ig.ft.com/netflix-future/
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Anybody who has kids, know they all watch YouTube these days. Netflix and other streaming services are throwing mega bucks at productions for the adults. Disney+ now there for kids. The BBC will have to reform, and the licence fee in todays world is totally unenforceable, as you can't tie watching TV to a single physical moving picture box.
How we move forward from that will have to be debated. A tax on everybody regardless of tv or not or ads, or a bit of both, seems like the only way, other than total let them fight with everybody else.
Indeed. The BBC 'is' increasingly outdated, and pedestrian for newer broadcasters, and forms of broadcasting. There should be a review, and an update.
The BBC should be allowed to compete with Netflix, and Amazon, and the like, it can't at the moment.
Being “allowed to compete” means being forced to compete. Terrific. Give me Netflix,, Youtube, Spotify and Disney+ any day. I’ll let everyone else pay for Stenders and Strictly if that’s their bag.
Roger Scully's tweets have borne no relation to the poll that succeeds them previously, I see no reason he should start now
The last one did show a pretty big increase for labour (9%), although the tories went up too the lead didn't widen too much. It clearly wasn't worth the hype but it was still noteworthy imo.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
I can't disagree with any of his comment. It is effectively a tax. It's perfectly reasonable to have another look at it. I don't see that as being an unpopular commitment at all. Bollocks to BBC journos if they wish to get up tight about it.
The licence fee is in fact just about the most regressive tax we have. It's on a par with a household-based poll tax. Even council tax has a part associated with property value and discounts through council tax benefit and for single households. The licence fee has no relief now save for the poorest of the over 75s only.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Anybody who has kids, know they all watch YouTube these days. Netflix and other streaming services are throwing mega bucks at productions for the adults. Disney+ now there for kids. The BBC will have to reform, and the licence fee in todays world is totally unenforceable, as you can't tie watching TV to a single physical moving picture box.
How we move forward from that will have to be debated. A tax on everybody regardless of tv or not or ads, or a bit of both, seems like the only way, other than total let them fight with everybody else.
Indeed. The BBC 'is' increasingly outdated, and pedestrian for newer broadcasters, and forms of broadcasting. There should be a review, and an update.
The BBC should be allowed to compete with Netflix, and Amazon, and the like, it can't at the moment.
I think the BBC has some genuinely saleable worldwide assets. First thing I loaded up on my new TV was Planet Earth II (Via Netflix) - the production is stunning.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad.
What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
His comment is totally undefinitive, just pointing out the media landscape is changing and the licence fee is reviewed on a regular basis (but isn't due to be looked at again for ages). But you know the BBC will now what to dedicate hours to talking about themselves.
And Sky will be quite happy to talk about the licence fee too. It should be abolished I hope it is. Or turned into a voluntary subscription model.
It's too late for it to effect the foreign policy debate of this election, but it would probably alter the optics on foreign policy for the next government if Afghanistan becomes another Iraq War:
If Boris abolishes the license fee, he’s a total legend. I strongly suspect I’m not alone in that view.
Narrator voice: "He won't"
I’m hoping he doesn’t just abolish the license fee but also IPOs the BBC while it’s still worth something. Give the proceeds to the universal broadband fund. Maybe they see that as a Term 2 policy. Too late by then though.
Worth repeating - with three quarters of the LEAVE vote and a sixth of the REMAIN vote in his pocket (and assuming the current split is 52-48 in favour of REMAIN), Boris Johnson and the Conservatives have 44% without too much trouble.
The three overlapping elements of the Conservative voting coalition of 2019 are:
1) LEAVE supporters who want to see us out of the EU and see Boris Johnson's Conservatives as the only vehicle for that to happen.
2) REMAIN supporters, who, while disagreeing with the 2016 Referendum result believe it needs to be enacted as part of democratic legitimacy.
3) REMAIN supporters, who, while disagreeing with the 2016 Referendum result, consider a Corbyn-led Labour Government to be the stuff of nightmares and will do anything to prevent it happening.
The longer term question for me is whether, once we have left the EU and once Corbyn and his ilk have been removed from influence within the Labour party, the coalition will hang together - we'll see.
Since the Comres poll of June 11th showed Johnson, alone of the Conservative leadership contenders, winning a majority for the Party and keeping the backbenchers in jobs, the GE has been no contest. Had the Tories chosen Hunt it would be a very different situation now but as the Conservatives, unlike Labour, chose a leader under whom they had a chance of winning, they will get another five years in power with, I suspect, a landslide majority and my buy of Conservative seats of 325 will pay for Christmas at Stodge Towers.
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Let's hope it's a means of shifting the BBC to a proper subscription model as forcing the BBC to pay for the Over 75s was a cheap tax trick by Osbourne and should have been called out at the time for what it was.
A hypothecated 0.6% increase in income tax base rate would be fairer. The licence fee is both regressive and easily evaded.
Yes lets tax the workers again, and exempt the retired again.
A big problem the BBC have in terms of competing worldwide streaming subscriptions service, is their technology is shit. iPlayer platform is utter garbage technically. They are miles behind on 4k and HDR.
And I very much doubt they have the sort of high quality data analytics that Netflix and Disney have on every single user (Disney bought their tech for a lot of money). And that is what keeps your users, as you know what they watch, what they probably want to watch next and also what shows you should be making.
I am sure the Maomentum tw@tter-sphere is firing up retweets galore of Boris photo clip.
I think he is going to need to find some sort of response.
No winter crisis, quick lets find something else instead. A single child in a single hospital in the world's largest employer has had a poor experience.
On the BBC, can iPlayer be accessed from abroad for a fee ? If not that should be the first source of additional revenue.
They don't have the overseas rights to most programmes. If you look at any big BBC production nowadays it only exists because Netflix or Amazon are paying for the global rights.
What a joke, Johnson has been quoted as saying that 580 million EU citizens are waiting to move to Britain.
This statement is wrong on two basic premises, firstly the whole population of Europe is 513 million and certainly they would not all want to move to Britain.
What a joke. Johnson was compared to a second hand car salesman this morning on Radio 4,very apt.
However the Tories will win the election with a decent majority because the opposition is split. People will find that in a few months time Boris and Brexit will prove to be a very toxic combination.
Funny isn't it how PB.com headlines the fact when the Tories slip 5 seats on the GE seat spread markets, yet remain totally silent when just three days later their quoted price increases by six seats?
The double whammy is that not just are the Tories keeping more Remainers but those they lose are going mainly to the Lib Dems.
While Labour are not just losing more Leavers, more of them going direct to the Tories.
True. And, the Conservatives can probably afford such losses better than Labour, as they tend to be in affluent seats with very large Conservative majorities. If the Tory lead in Esher & Walton is cut from 23,000 to 5,000, it's still a Conservative seat in the Commons.
Sounds like we will have a big tory majority combined with loads of marginals for them to defend in 2024. The difficulty for the tories at that election will be half the marginals will be in affluent seats and half in post industrial struggling towns. I fail to see how they keep those parts of their coalition together.
The Blair approach? Win big enough first up to last for three terms?
I really hope not.
It's an unusual situation given the Tories have won in government for 9 years one way or another and a big win should not really happen. If it does it might be that big majority is not the firewall that Blairs was given the letters was first term.
It's amazing that the tories have managed to disassociate themselves from the last nine years whilst the LibDems have failed quite miserably to extricate themselves from culpability.
It was great how Cameron managed to take the credit for everything that went right and lib dems got blame for everything that went wrong.
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
Labour looks to get votes from the poorest which encourages them to ensure they stay poor. Hence the poverty trap they created ensures they stay impoverished, while ensuring people rent is good for Labour.
Tories want to help people succeed and believe in mobility. Lifting people out of poverty and helping them own their own home is good for the Tories.
Indeed. Labour chose to be the party for landlords when in government which is why home ownership rates collapsed in this country.
The Tories for years have been taxing landlords putting additional Stamp Duty on second homes and offering Help to Buy only to those wanting to buy their own home not landlords and now home ownership rates are increasing once more.
I think the Tories increasing home ownership rates is good. I think Labour decreasing home ownership rates was bad. What about you?
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Like the other parties the Tories record is mixed, Osbourne started to realise people without capital dont vote for capitalism shortly before he left and some of the recent initiatives have therefore been positive. Most of the negative impact from QE, nationalised mortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE began under the last government and was needed as they'd ran out of money. Help to Buy was a Tory idea and has helped lead to record construction and improved home ownership rates I agree.
Which was my original point. Tories want voters to have capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from those with wages but no assets. I think the first few years of that were unintended as politicians didnt fully understand what QE was doing and just following central bankers advice. The last few years have been a deliberate continuance, separating the country into haves and have nots. After a decade in power I will judge by their actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
The results are that home ownership rates are now rising. Do you consider that a good or bad result?
I am sure the Maomentum tw@tter-sphere is firing up retweets galore of Boris photo clip.
I think he is going to need to find some sort of response.
No winter crisis, quick lets find something else instead. A single child in a single hospital in the world's largest employer has had a poor experience.
Single child in single hospital?? You sound even more immoral and ruthless than Bojo Google death rate among eldery
Funny isn't it how PB.com headlines the fact when the Tories slip 5 seats on the GE seat spread markets, yet remain totally silent when just three days later their quoted price increases by six seats?
That's because virtually all the threads headers are written by the hard left/Corbynistas!
On the BBC, can iPlayer be accessed from abroad for a fee ? If not that should be the first source of additional revenue.
No. Because it’s run by morons. There’s a crappy version with mainly very old programming.
That said, I got given a box by someone that gives you uk free view (live and 30 days back) but the embedded VPN costs £5 a month. I had it for one month before I realised what a bad deal it was and cancelled it. At half the price of the license fee.
If they keep the current model, it won’t be long before ironically the only people who regularly watch the BBC are the over 75s. Which is so silly when you consider the head start the BBC had in the streaming wars, if it wasn’t run by people who only care about locking in one more 10 year charter to see them and their mates through to pension age.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Trying to work out why Boris - normally good at empathy - refused to look at the photo. My theory is pretty simple, he worried it was a trick, to get him to look at something REALLY and personally embarrassing. Maybe a photo of one of his own kids?!
So he acts wary and defensive.
I do not believe he knew the photo and was too ashamed to view it. All he had to do was look at it and say Oh that's terrible, which in the end was what he did.
But he came across as shifty and sly. Not good.
You are joking right? Boris Johnson is one of the least empathetic politicians I have ever seen. Wanting to be loved and loving other people back are two entirely different things.
Empathy in politicians is like sincerity - it's good to have, but faking it is usually enough.
Does he even fake it convincingly, though? I've never seen a leading politician who so transparently things it's all a game. Even George Osborne seemed more empathetic, and his resting bitch face was a sight to behold.
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Let's hope it's a means of shifting the BBC to a proper subscription model as forcing the BBC to pay for the Over 75s was a cheap tax trick by Osbourne and should have been called out at the time for what it was.
A hypothecated 0.6% increase in income tax base rate would be fairer. The licence fee is both regressive and easily evaded.
Yes lets tax the workers again, and exempt the retired again.
The retired are exempt from Income tax. Who knew?
Badly worded and incorrect I accept. If they have organised their affairs efficiently through ISAs and pensions then tax rates are very low for them.
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
Labour looks to get votes from the poorest which encourages them to ensure they stay poor. Hence the poverty trap they created ensures they stay impoverished, while ensuring people rent is good for Labour.
Tories want to help people succeed and believe in mobility. Lifting people out of poverty and helping them own their own home is good for the Tories.
Indeed. Labour chose to be the party for landlords when in government which is why home ownership rates collapsed in this country.
I think the Tories increasing home ownership rates is good. I think Labour decreasing home ownership rates was bad. What about you?
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Like the other parties the Tories record is mixed, Osbourne started to realise people without capital dont vote for capitalism shortly before he left and some of the recent initiatives have therefore been positive. Most of the negative impact from QE, nationalised mortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE began under the last government and was needed as they'd ran out of money. Help to Buy was a Tory idea and has helped lead to record construction and improved home ownership rates I agree.
Which was my original point. Tories want voters to have capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from those with wages but no assets. I think the first few years of that were unintended as politicians didnt fully understand what QE was doing and just following central bankers advice. The last few years have been a deliberate continuance, separating the country into haves and have nots. After a decade in power I will judge by their actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
Capitalism is a terrible system apart from all the other systems that have been tried. Look what happened in Venezuela when they tried to build a socialist utopia.
What a joke, Johnson has been quoted as saying that 580 million EU citizens are waiting to move to Britain.
This statement is wrong on two basic premises, firstly the whole population of Europe is 513 million and certainly they would not all want to move to Britain.
What a joke. Johnson was compared to a second hand car salesman this morning on Radio 4,very apt.
However the Tories will win the election with a decent majority because the opposition is split. People will find that in a few months time Boris and Brexit will prove to be a very toxic combination.
1. Plaid confident of holding Ceredigion - not so confident in Ynys Mon
2. Plaid doing well in Neath and Caerffili - not well enough to win this GE but setting up for win at next Senedd election.
3. Labour have given up in Bridgend - but getting a bit confident in Vale of Glamorgan
If Labour have given up on Bridgend, a seat that they had an 11% lead last time, they won't get the Vale which they lost by 4%. Those are neighbouring seats.
On the BBC, can iPlayer be accessed from abroad for a fee ? If not that should be the first source of additional revenue.
I think Britbox is designed to meet some of that market, and the offer on there will be designed to overcome the difficulties of extending iPlayer access.
I should imagine doing what you suggest would cause an issue with rights negotiations (ie all the Attenborough stuff co-funded with US networks can't be accessed; fees for performers are based on X terrestrial showings and 30-day UK catchup etc etc).
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Anybody who has kids, know they all watch YouTube these days. Netflix and other streaming services are throwing mega bucks at productions for the adults. Disney+ now there for kids. The BBC will have to reform, and the licence fee in todays world is totally unenforceable, as you can't tie watching TV to a single physical moving picture box.
How we move forward from that will have to be debated. A tax on everybody regardless of tv or not or ads, or a bit of both, seems like the only way, other than total let them fight with everybody else.
Indeed. The BBC 'is' increasingly outdated, and pedestrian for newer broadcasters, and forms of broadcasting. There should be a review, and an update.
The BBC should be allowed to compete with Netflix, and Amazon, and the like, it can't at the moment.
I think the BBC has some genuinely saleable worldwide assets. First thing I loaded up on my new TV was Planet Earth II (Via Netflix) - the production is stunning.
There's no denying that but the key issue for me is that I watch very little BBC output live. I've recently binged watched Line Of Duty, which was good, but no better than the stuff I'm getting off Netflix or Sky Atlantic etc. I catch the odd bit of news on the beeb, and listen to 5 Live in the car but I could live without that if it meant I didn't pay the licence fee. I will admit that I do prefer the BBC for sports coverage when there is a choice. Its such an archaic system now, given the way the Internet and satellite/cable has opened up TV viewing. If I could be arsed, I'd stop paying the fee and take my chances.
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
Labour looks to get votes from the poorest which encourages them to ensure they stay poor. Hence the poverty trap they created ensures they stay impoverished, while ensuring people rent is good for Labour.
Tories want to help people succeed and believe in mobility. Lifting people out of poverty and helping them own their own home is good for the Tories.
Indeed. Labour chose to be the party for landlords when in government which is why home ownership rates collapsed in this country.
I think the Tories increasing home ownership rates is good. I think Labour decreasing home ownership rates was bad. What about you?
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Like the other parties the Tories record is mixed, Osbourne started to realise people without capital dont vote for capitalism shortly before he left and some of the recent initiatives have therefore been positive. Most of the negative impact from QE, nationalised mortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE began under the last government and was needed as they'd ran out of money. Help to Buy was a Tory idea and has helped lead to record construction and improved home ownership rates I agree.
Which was my original point. Tories want voters to have capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from those with wages but no assets. I think the first few years of that were unintended as politicians didnt fully understand what QE was doing and just following central bankers advice. The last few years have been a deliberate continuance, separating the country into haves and have nots. After a decade in power I will judge by their actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
Capitalism is a terrible system apart from all the other systems that have been tried. Look what happened in Venezuela when they tried to build a socialist utopia.
Or look at the Scandi economic models? Investment, social equality, focus on education and technology. Sounds good to me.
Funny isn't it how PB.com headlines the fact when the Tories slip 5 seats on the GE seat spread markets, yet remain totally silent when just three days later their quoted price increases by six seats?
It was great how Cameron managed to take the credit for everything that went right and lib dems got blame for everything that went wrong.
There's a very good reason for that - the LibDems spend no time celebrating the successes of the coalition (and especially not rescuing the economy, which was actually the reason they gave for joining it in the first place), but instead invariably apologise for it.
Jo Swinson was again repeating this mistake a couple of days ago. It's an absolutely bizarre blunder.
What kind of Government can we expect from Johnson once he has his majority? I suspect there will be a frenetic start - getting the WA through the Commons and a Budget but there will be plenty of Government over the next five years.
I don't know whether Johnson considers himself a "liberal Conservative" but he's an interventionist (far more so than May) and seems convinced there's no solution that cannot be solved by Government or with public money.
Indeed, the more I listen to Johnson and his spending pledges, the more I hear Tony Blair and my suspicion we are looking at a decade of centralised social democracy with a blue rosette.
Oddly enough, as a Lib Dem, even though I have serious doubts about Johnson, I wouldn't be wholly unhappy with the direction of travel. This would be social democracy wrapped in a Union Jack - I do think the coming centralisation of power into Whitehall and No.10 is profoundly mistaken but I'm a supporter of devolving power down not centralising it up.
It's not populism though for now it's popular. Whether it remains so will depend on whether Johnson can convince people he is delivering - his jocular bonhomie goes a long way but he'll have a record to defend and there will inevitably be some more difficult choices to make. It'll be interesting to see how Johnson reacts if and when the Government hits its mid-term trough.
The CON vote is provided by those who work or have worked, including the aspirant working classes, who want to be able to hold onto a fair part of the wealth for which they have worked. That to me is more important than Brexit. It is down to these 43% to 45% to get out to the polling station on Thur to defeat the enemy within which is LAB, LD and SNP.
Another problem the BBC has, is it isn't seen as a tech company when that's what it needs to be more of as they are miles behind.
Top graduates want to work at Netflix and Amazon, because they are seen as sexy tech companies doing loads of interesting Machine Learning / AI stuff (and they pay shit loads too).
On the BBC and steaming, I know one of the world's experts on streaming media after a chat with him on the subject I became a lot less bullish on Netflix.
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Let's hope it's a means of shifting the BBC to a proper subscription model as forcing the BBC to pay for the Over 75s was a cheap tax trick by Osbourne and should have been called out at the time for what it was.
A hypothecated 0.6% increase in income tax base rate would be fairer. The licence fee is both regressive and easily evaded.
Yes lets tax the workers again, and exempt the retired again.
The retired are exempt from Income tax. Who knew?
Badly worded and incorrect I accept. If they have organised their affairs efficiently through ISAs and pensions then tax rates are very low for them.
Arsey from me, sorry. Most pensioners are reliant on their pensions which are taxable, but obviously they would have lower incomes than workers whilst getting more benefit from the bbc. That notwithstanding, the licence fee is horribly regressive.
I am sure the Maomentum tw@tter-sphere is firing up retweets galore of Boris photo clip.
I think he is going to need to find some sort of response.
No winter crisis, quick lets find something else instead. A single child in a single hospital in the world's largest employer has had a poor experience.
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
Labour looks to get votes from the poorest which encourages them to ensure they stay poor. Hence the poverty trap they created ensures they stay impoverished, while ensuring people rent is good for Labour.
Tories want to help people succeed and believe in mobility. Lifting people out of poverty and helping them own their own home is good for the Tories.
Indeed. Labour chose to be the party for landlords when in government which is why home ownership rates collapsed in this country.
I think the Tories increasing home ownership rates is good. I think Labour decreasing home ownership rates was bad. What about you?
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Likemortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE began under the last government and was needed as they'd ran out of money. Help to Buy was a Tory idea and has helped lead to record construction and improved home ownership rates I agree.
Which was my original point. Tories want voters to have capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from those with wages but no assets. I think the first few years of that were unintended as politicians didnt fully understand what QE was doing and just following central bankers advice. The last few years have been a deliberate continuance, separating the country into haves and have nots. After a decade in power I will judge by their actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
Capitalism is a terrible system apart from all the other systems that have been tried. Look what happened in Venezuela when they tried to build a socialist utopia.
Or look at the Scandi economic models? Investment, social equality, focus on education and technology. Sounds good to me.
Scandinavian model is capitalist with a stronger safety net, it is probably the most market orientated set of economies in the EU outside of the UK.
Worth listening to WATO at about 1.20 ish.. 8.undecided voters.. and at the end. The mrssage get brexit done was repeated by at least 6 of the 8 undecided who said if they had to vote.now they would vote tory. dyor but the e message is getting thro One guy was vitriolic about Bercow 😀😀😀
On the BBC and steaming, I know one of the world's experts on streaming media after a chat with him on the subject I became a lot less bullish on Netflix.
Netflix have a huge problem that they don't own a lot of the content that is watched on repeat e.g. The Office and Friends get many multiple more watches than The Crown etc. People binge watch House of Cards or the The Crown and then rarely rewatch it. Where as things like the Office, lots of people put episodes on an extremely regular basis, even ones they have seen many times before.
Also, now the likes of Disney are coming for them. They have both the content and have bought up the tech.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
I can't disagree with any of his comment. It is effectively a tax. It's perfectly reasonable to have another look at it. I don't see that as being an unpopular commitment at all. Bollocks to BBC journos if they wish to get up tight about it.
The licence fee is in fact just about the most regressive tax we have. It's on a par with a household-based poll tax. Even council tax has a part associated with property value and discounts through council tax benefit and for single households. The licence fee has no relief now save for the poorest of the over 75s only.
Maybe I am just being paranoid because I am so nervous.
A small eerie voice inside me says I will be staring at a Corbyn majority, and total destruction of the country, at about 5am on a cold Friday morning.
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Like the other parties the Tories record is mixed, Osbourne started to realise people without capital dont vote for capitalism shortly before he left and some of the recent initiatives have therefore been positive. Most of the negative impact from QE, nationalised mortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE began under the last government and was needed as they'd ran out of money. Help to Buy was a Tory idea and has helped lead to record construction and improved home ownership rates I agree.
Which was my original point. Tories want voters to have capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from those with wages but no assets. I think the first few years of that were unintended as politicians didnt fully understand what QE was doing and just following central bankers advice. The last few years have been a deliberate continuance, separating the country into haves and have nots. After a decade in power I will judge by their actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
The results are that home ownership rates are now rising. Do you consider that a good or bad result?
Rising is a good thing. They have risen for about a year but are near their long term lows. Even when the trend is downwards there will be the odd good spell where it rises for a year. It might be noise, it might be a reflection of the better policies I mentioned earlier. Too early to tell, I hope its the start of a reversal. Over a decade in power the rates have dropped much more significantly than the recent rise, that is their record.
I am sure the Maomentum tw@tter-sphere is firing up retweets galore of Boris photo clip.
I think he is going to need to find some sort of response.
No winter crisis, quick lets find something else instead. A single child in a single hospital in the world's largest employer has had a poor experience.
Single child in single hospital?? You sound even more immoral and ruthless than Bojo Google death rate among eldery
Hold on, i thought it was the "envy of the world" . Surely you are not saying that our national religion has some poor health outcomes?
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
Tories want to help people succeed and believe in mobility. Lifting people out of poverty and helping them own their own home is good for the Tories.
Indeed. Labour chose to be the party for landlords when in government which is why home ownership rates collapsed in this country.
I think the Tories increasing home ownership rates is good. I think Labour decreasing home ownership rates was bad. What about you?
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Likemortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE began under the last government and was needed as they'd ran out of money. Help to Buy was a Tory idea and has helped lead to record construction and improved home ownership rates I agree.
Which was my original point. Tories want voters to have capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from those with wages but no assets. I think the first few years of that were unintended as politicians didnt fully understand what QE was doing and just following central bankers advice. The last few years have been a deliberate continuance, separating the country into haves and have nots. After a decade in power I will judge by their actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
Capitalism is a terrible system apart from all the other systems that have been tried. Look what happened in Venezuela when they tried to build a socialist utopia.
Or look at the Scandi economic models? Investment, social equality, focus on education and technology. Sounds good to me.
Scandinavian model is capitalist with a stronger safety net, it is probably the most market orientated set of economies in the EU outside of the UK.
Some problems are starting to emerge though.
For instance the unemployment rate in Sweden is currently 7.4% compared to 3.8% in the UK. (Denmark is 5.3%).
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Let's hope it's a means of shifting the BBC to a proper subscription model as forcing the BBC to pay for the Over 75s was a cheap tax trick by Osbourne and should have been called out at the time for what it was.
A hypothecated 0.6% increase in income tax base rate would be fairer. The licence fee is both regressive and easily evaded.
But why should we all have to pay for it at all? The licence fee is at least 25 years out of date. If people want to subscribe then that's fine, but it shouldn't be compulsory.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
The CON vote is provided by those who work or have worked, including the aspirant working classes, who want to be able to hold onto a fair part of the wealth for which they have worked. That to me is more important than Brexit. It is down to these 43% to 45% to get out to the polling station on Thur to defeat the enemy within which is LAB, LD and SNP.
If we can get the 43% to 45% we will be fine.
That is true. The big two political parties got 84% of the vote last time, it shouldn't be much away from 80% in this election. So 45% would guarantee a Conservative lead of around 10 even if Labour does squeeze the LD to previous levels.
Boris has just said he might abolish the BBC licence fee.
That's really quite stupid. Yes it makes logical sense, the BBC itself is considering a new structure, as the fee is unsustainable. But why say it NOW? Why say anything controversial NOW, when the election is almost over, and probably won?
This can easily be portrayed - esp by angry BBC journos - as Boris threatening to privatise our beloved Beeb, as well as the NHS, blah blah
Silly man.
Why privatise? The opposite surely?
But that's how it will be portrayed. Boris is making gaffes as we enter the final straight. The guest workers comment. This BBC idea. The kid in the photo - Why not look?
He's probably as tired as the rest of them. Just three days to go. Help.
Just a thought...dead cat strategy again....the stuff about the kid not getting a bed is bad. What we do know, the media love to talk about themselves and the BBC going mental should anybody ever suggest that you know the BBC should ever be reformed in anyway.
Yes he threw in the BBC comment to deflect from the horror interview earlier with ITV. But without the license fee the BBC will not survive in its current form .
Trying to work out why Boris - normally good at empathy - refused to look at the photo. My theory is pretty simple, he worried it was a trick, to get him to look at something REALLY and personally embarrassing. Maybe a photo of one of his own kids?!
So he acts wary and defensive.
I do not believe he knew the photo and was too ashamed to view it. All he had to do was look at it and say Oh that's terrible, which in the end was what he did.
But he came across as shifty and sly. Not good.
You are joking right? Boris Johnson is one of the least empathetic politicians I have ever seen. Wanting to be loved and loving other people back are two entirely different things.
Empathy in politicians is like sincerity - it's good to have, but faking it is usually enough.
Does he even fake it convincingly, though? I've never seen a leading politician who so transparently things it's all a game. Even George Osborne seemed more empathetic, and his resting bitch face was a sight to behold.
I dont think Boris is great at empathy. Hes great at affable confidence.
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Let's hope it's a means of shifting the BBC to a proper subscription model as forcing the BBC to pay for the Over 75s was a cheap tax trick by Osbourne and should have been called out at the time for what it was.
A hypothecated 0.6% increase in income tax base rate would be fairer. The licence fee is both regressive and easily evaded.
Yes lets tax the workers again, and exempt the retired again.
The retired are exempt from Income tax. Who knew?
Badly worded and incorrect I accept. If they have organised their affairs efficiently through ISAs and pensions then tax rates are very low for them.
Arsey from me, sorry. Most pensioners are reliant on their pensions which are taxable, but obviously they would have lower incomes than workers whilst getting more benefit from the bbc. That notwithstanding, the licence fee is horribly regressive.
No need to apologise, I was in the wrong, completely fair to point it out!
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
Tories want to help people succeed and believe in mobility. Lifting people out of poverty and helping them own their own home is good for the Tories.
Indeed. Labour chose to be the party for landlords when in government which is why home ownership rates collapsed in this country.
I think the Tories increasing home ownership rates is good. I think Labour decreasing home ownership rates was bad. What about you?
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Likemortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from thoseheir actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
Capitalism is a terrible system apart from all the other systems that have been tried. Look what happened in Venezuela when they tried to build a socialist utopia.
Or look at the Scandi economic models? Investment, social equality, focus on education and technology. Sounds good to me.
Scandinavian model is capitalist with a stronger safety net, it is probably the most market orientated set of economies in the EU outside of the UK.
Some problems are starting to emerge though.
For instance the unemployment rate in Sweden is currently 7.4% compared to 3.8% in the UK. (Denmark is 5.3%).
Sweden has really terrible problems with Muslim integration. Their Corbynite immigration policy has not been a success.
I see CORBYN is in Bristol which is ultra LAB area.
Is Debbonaire going to lose her seat?!
What the hell is he doing there. It is literally West Country Islington.
Early in the campaign it was reported that Labour may have had issues with Bristol NW, but Corbyn's campaign is not consistent with any broad picture this past week.
Folk switching from Labour to Conservative over Brexit will live to regret their decision when they get shafted by the next Government.
All governments this century are responsible for the housing situation, so Labour, Tories and LDs. Like the other parties the Tories record is mixed, Osbourne started to realise people without capital dont vote for capitalism shortly before he left and some of the recent initiatives have therefore been positive. Most of the negative impact from QE, nationalised mortgage banking and Help to Buy have happened under the Tory watch though.
QE began under the last government and was needed as they'd ran out of money. Help to Buy was a Tory idea and has helped lead to record construction and improved home ownership rates I agree.
Which was my original point. Tories want voters to have capital. They want voters to succeed.
Labour wants voters to rely upon them.
The Tories have just presided over a decade where those with assets have raced away from those with wages but no assets. I think the first few years of that were unintended as politicians didnt fully understand what QE was doing and just following central bankers advice. The last few years have been a deliberate continuance, separating the country into haves and have nots. After a decade in power I will judge by their actions and results not their words or spin.
Obviously I have no time for Labours current economics either. No-one is representing workers interests.
The results are that home ownership rates are now rising. Do you consider that a good or bad result?
Rising is a good thing. They have risen for about a year but are near their long term lows. Even when the trend is downwards there will be the odd good spell where it rises for a year. It might be noise, it might be a reflection of the better policies I mentioned earlier. Too early to tell, I hope its the start of a reversal. Over a decade in power the rates have dropped much more significantly than the recent rise, that is their record.
Is it?
The drop was halted in 2013. I think its hard to blame 2010-2013 on this government's record given it takes time to turnaround things.
There was a long term downward trend, that was halted, stabilised and now it is on an upwards trend again. That is good. Hopefully by 2024 it will have continued to go up.
Capitalism is a terrible system apart from all the other systems that have been tried. Look what happened in Venezuela when they tried to build a socialist utopia.
Or look at the Scandi economic models? Investment, social equality, focus on education and technology. Sounds good to me.
What does Corbynism have to do with Scandinavia though?
"Back to Boris Johnson and his questions. He's asked about the future of the BBC licence fee and surprises those listening saying he believes the whole idea of funding the BBC through a licence fee should be looked at.
"It is effectively a tax," he says."
So he says looked at. Nothing definitive.
If he wins, let's hope this is the leverage to force BBC to pay for all Over 75s.
Let's hope it's a means of shifting the BBC to a proper subscription model as forcing the BBC to pay for the Over 75s was a cheap tax trick by Osbourne and should have been called out at the time for what it was.
A hypothecated 0.6% increase in income tax base rate would be fairer. The licence fee is both regressive and easily evaded.
Yes lets tax the workers again, and exempt the retired again.
The retired are exempt from Income tax. Who knew?
Badly worded and incorrect I accept. If they have organised their affairs efficiently through ISAs and pensions then tax rates are very low for them.
Arsey from me, sorry. Most pensioners are reliant on their pensions which are taxable, but obviously they would have lower incomes than workers whilst getting more benefit from the bbc. That notwithstanding, the licence fee is horribly regressive.
No need to apologise, I was in the wrong, completely fair to point it out!
Comments
Perhaps LDs and centrists need to become entryists into the main parties, the opposite of what has been happening?
1. It would be able to go into markets and borrow huge sums to develop its programming.
2. It would be able to remove its content from other platforms that show it now.
3. As a result, it would be able to offer lower subscription packages than its rivals.
4. It would be able to sell subscriptions globally.
In terms of UK soft power, a truly global BBC able to compete with the biggest of the US platforms would be huge. However, it would be quite likely to mean the BBC being even more dominant in the UK than it is now.
But with Labour down to 29% and Plaid up to 15%
The BBC should be allowed to compete with Netflix, and Amazon, and the like, it can't at the moment.
I think he is going to need to find some sort of response.
https://ig.ft.com/netflix-future/
Heh.
The licence fee is in fact just about the most regressive tax we have. It's on a par with a household-based poll tax. Even council tax has a part associated with property value and discounts through council tax benefit and for single households. The licence fee has no relief now save for the poorest of the over 75s only.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1203998904121004033
For example the question could be "What did the British Government knew and didn't tell us ? ".
Worth repeating - with three quarters of the LEAVE vote and a sixth of the REMAIN vote in his pocket (and assuming the current split is 52-48 in favour of REMAIN), Boris Johnson and the Conservatives have 44% without too much trouble.
The three overlapping elements of the Conservative voting coalition of 2019 are:
1) LEAVE supporters who want to see us out of the EU and see Boris Johnson's Conservatives as the only vehicle for that to happen.
2) REMAIN supporters, who, while disagreeing with the 2016 Referendum result believe it needs to be enacted as part of democratic legitimacy.
3) REMAIN supporters, who, while disagreeing with the 2016 Referendum result, consider a Corbyn-led Labour Government to be the stuff of nightmares and will do anything to prevent it happening.
The longer term question for me is whether, once we have left the EU and once Corbyn and his ilk have been removed from influence within the Labour party, the coalition will hang together - we'll see.
Since the Comres poll of June 11th showed Johnson, alone of the Conservative leadership contenders, winning a majority for the Party and keeping the backbenchers in jobs, the GE has been no contest. Had the Tories chosen Hunt it would be a very different situation now but as the Conservatives, unlike Labour, chose a leader under whom they had a chance of winning, they will get another five years in power with, I suspect, a landslide majority and my buy of Conservative seats of 325 will pay for Christmas at Stodge Towers.
And I very much doubt they have the sort of high quality data analytics that Netflix and Disney have on every single user (Disney bought their tech for a lot of money). And that is what keeps your users, as you know what they watch, what they probably want to watch next and also what shows you should be making.
1. Plaid confident of holding Ceredigion - not so confident in Ynys Mon
2. Plaid doing well in Neath and Caerffili - not well enough to win this GE but setting up for win at next Senedd election.
3. Labour have given up in Bridgend - but getting a bit confident in Vale of Glamorgan
Last month it was LAB 38 CON 32 in the welsh barometer.
My subsamples average is LAB 38 CON 36.
This statement is wrong on two basic premises, firstly the whole population of Europe is 513 million and certainly they would not all want to move to Britain.
What a joke. Johnson was compared to a second hand car salesman this morning on Radio 4,very apt.
However the Tories will win the election with a decent majority because the opposition is split. People will find that in a few months time Boris and Brexit will prove to be a very toxic combination.
Google death rate among eldery
That said, I got given a box by someone that gives you uk free view (live and 30 days back) but the embedded VPN costs £5 a month. I had it for one month before I realised what a bad deal it was and cancelled it. At half the price of the license fee.
If they keep the current model, it won’t be long before ironically the only people who regularly watch the BBC are the over 75s. Which is so silly when you consider the head start the BBC had in the streaming wars, if it wasn’t run by people who only care about locking in one more 10 year charter to see them and their mates through to pension age.
Those are neighbouring seats.
I should imagine doing what you suggest would cause an issue with rights negotiations (ie all the Attenborough stuff co-funded with US networks can't be accessed; fees for performers are based on X terrestrial showings and 30-day UK catchup etc etc).
Jo Swinson was again repeating this mistake a couple of days ago. It's an absolutely bizarre blunder.
What kind of Government can we expect from Johnson once he has his majority? I suspect there will be a frenetic start - getting the WA through the Commons and a Budget but there will be plenty of Government over the next five years.
I don't know whether Johnson considers himself a "liberal Conservative" but he's an interventionist (far more so than May) and seems convinced there's no solution that cannot be solved by Government or with public money.
Indeed, the more I listen to Johnson and his spending pledges, the more I hear Tony Blair and my suspicion we are looking at a decade of centralised social democracy with a blue rosette.
Oddly enough, as a Lib Dem, even though I have serious doubts about Johnson, I wouldn't be wholly unhappy with the direction of travel. This would be social democracy wrapped in a Union Jack - I do think the coming centralisation of power into Whitehall and No.10 is profoundly mistaken but I'm a supporter of devolving power down not centralising it up.
It's not populism though for now it's popular. Whether it remains so will depend on whether Johnson can convince people he is delivering - his jocular bonhomie goes a long way but he'll have a record to defend and there will inevitably be some more difficult choices to make. It'll be interesting to see how Johnson reacts if and when the Government hits its mid-term trough.
The CON vote is provided by those who work or have worked, including the aspirant working classes, who want to be able to hold onto a fair part of the wealth for which they have worked. That to me is more important than Brexit. It is down to these 43% to 45% to get out to the polling station on Thur to defeat the enemy within which is LAB, LD and SNP.
If we can get the 43% to 45% we will be fine.
Top graduates want to work at Netflix and Amazon, because they are seen as sexy tech companies doing loads of interesting Machine Learning / AI stuff (and they pay shit loads too).
Wales is the only place in Britain where UKIP has a political presence and that had transferred to the Brexit party.
Most pensioners are reliant on their pensions which are taxable, but obviously they would have lower incomes than workers whilst getting more benefit from the bbc. That notwithstanding, the licence fee is horribly regressive.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mortality-rates-are-on-the-rise-in-the-uk-so-why-is-no-one-talking-about-it
If not for Corbyn and Brexit, the Toris would be below 250 seats. Last ten years have been a disaster. The effects of which will last decades and take a generation to rectify.
Now the housing crisis, and Thatcher selling off the housing stock.
One guy was vitriolic about Bercow 😀😀😀
Also, now the likes of Disney are coming for them. They have both the content and have bought up the tech.
A small eerie voice inside me says I will be staring at a Corbyn majority, and total destruction of the country, at about 5am on a cold Friday morning.
It makes me shudder.
Is Debbonaire going to lose her seat?!
For instance the unemployment rate in Sweden is currently 7.4% compared to 3.8% in the UK. (Denmark is 5.3%).
The big two political parties got 84% of the vote last time, it shouldn't be much away from 80% in this election.
So 45% would guarantee a Conservative lead of around 10 even if Labour does squeeze the LD to previous levels.
Squeaky bum time!
The drop was halted in 2013. I think its hard to blame 2010-2013 on this government's record given it takes time to turnaround things.
There was a long term downward trend, that was halted, stabilised and now it is on an upwards trend again. That is good. Hopefully by 2024 it will have continued to go up.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1204051588777758722
But somebody is going to end up being wrong, there’s literally an 9 point gap between two pollsters
https://twitter.com/mark_dow/status/1204038134872195072