Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
Then the more exposure the England cricket team get, the better.
No, they’ve already found their level. As a 90s tribute act....
In the 1990s, we tried 15 different openers. However, at least one of them was more or less a constant and scored 16 centuries. One of the others went on to score 15 centuries albeit mostly in the middle order.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
Maybe so, yes. Certainly the low cost promotion of things that are uncontroversially good for society is one of the answers to that fiendishly tricky question - "What is the Beeb for?" - that I can sign up to.
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
Did Corbyn ever really have the cuddly old grandad persona until the (admittedly roaringly successful) 2017 GE rebrand? From my memories of 2015 he always came across as crotchety and sour.
It seems reasonable to suppose more than half of that half is in London, so 25-30% is not a ridiculous figure.
To put it in context, on a rough estimate London contains around 14% of the UK’s population, although a higher than usual proportion of that will not have the franchise.
Thanks vm. On that basis I'd say 1/3. I guess around half of my circle of friends are London based and the one thing they share in common is a total lack of awareness of the prevailing (negative) view of London in the rest of the country. Starmer's to lose then, though if I were a Labour supporter I would back Nandy and not bother with a second preference.
What is the administration up to ? Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ? (There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)
On the evangelical front, they just know that they have a great little voter base there and they’re courting it.
I do wonder what Trump is thinking when they do all that weird mass prayer laying-on-of-hands though. I don’t have him down as a man of god, it’s a role he plays because some weird midwesterners seem to have gone through the looking glass and staked their future on a man who is decidedly un-Christian.
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
Did Corbyn ever really have the cuddly old grandad persona until the (admittedly roaringly successful) 2017 GE rebrand? From my memories of 2015 he always came across as crotchety and sour.
My recollection was that he at the least came across as mellow, as it was not until his victory speech that I recall him going into his other mode, shouty campaigner man.
Mr. Cookie, the F1 coverage was very good. And then they threw it away when they still had a full year (at least) of rights.
For various reasons, I hardly watch TV news now (used to when I have my sarnies but now I tend to watch history on Youtube). Not sure what the last BBC programme I watched was, other than the news.
Same here. I dont have any complaints about them and get most of my news from their website, but other than sport I get most of my tv online.
I tried The Trial of Christine Keeler.
I found it guilty. It’s the first thing I’ve ever come across where the plot structure is more confused than Huxley’s Eyeless in Gaza.
There were fewer flashbacks in the second episode of "The Trial of Christine Keeler." I read "Eyeless in Gaza" years ago but I don't remember it as being particularly difficult to follow.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
Then the more exposure the England cricket team get, the better.
No, they’ve already found their level. As a 90s tribute act....
In the 1990s, we tried 15 different openers. However, at least one of them was more or less a constant and scored 16 centuries. One of the others went on to score 15 centuries albeit mostly in the middle order.
Where are we to find our Atherton today?
That’s the thing about tribute acts; they never quite measure up to the original.
Still, we are at least looking to justify the move to 4 day tests...
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
I don't think thr Magic Grandpa persona came about until after he was elected. I think his attraction to the selectorate was that he was a gnarled old firebrand who reflected how they really felt about things. That, and the meh-ness of two if the other three and the fact that the third was saying things they didn't want to hear. That said, Lavery's leftness is different to Corbyn's. Many of the Guardian-reading classes rather liked Corbyn's Palestine obsession. Lavery's more industrial leftiness may leave them colder.
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
Did Corbyn ever really have the cuddly old grandad persona until the (admittedly roaringly successful) 2017 GE rebrand? From my memories of 2015 he always came across as crotchety and sour.
My recollection was that he at the least came across as mellow, as it was not until his victory speech that I recall him going into his other mode, shouty campaigner man.
Thanks. I might be misremembering to be honest. My first concrete memory of JCs persona was Privy Council-gate.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise). To be pb-pedantic, it is McVey.
My point is Jess-fans seem willing to forgive or overlook a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Mr. Cookie, the F1 coverage was very good. And then they threw it away when they still had a full year (at least) of rights.
For various reasons, I hardly watch TV news now (used to when I have my sarnies but now I tend to watch history on Youtube). Not sure what the last BBC programme I watched was, other than the news.
Same here. I dont have any complaints about them and get most of my news from their website, but other than sport I get most of my tv online.
I tried The Trial of Christine Keeler.
I found it guilty. It’s the first thing I’ve ever come across where the plot structure is more confused than Huxley’s Eyeless in Gaza.
There were fewer flashbacks in the second episode of "The Trial of Christine Keeler." I read "Eyeless in Gaza" years ago but I don't remember it as being particularly difficult to follow.
Worst structure to follow I always remember was a shortlived show called The Event, which was trying to follow in the wake of Lost's success, a show more heavy on flashbacks than any other. But in the very first episode of The Event, in the first few minutes, they not only flashbacked, but had flashbacks within flashbacks. It was incomprehensible.
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
I don't think thr Magic Grandpa persona came about until after he was elected. I think his attraction to the selectorate was that he was a gnarled old firebrand who reflected how they really felt about things. That, and the meh-ness of two if the other three and the fact that the third was saying things they didn't want to hear. That said, Lavery's leftness is different to Corbyn's. Many of the Guardian-reading classes rather liked Corbyn's Palestine obsession. Lavery's more industrial leftiness may leave them colder.
Why do you (and you’re not the only one) specifically and deliberately use the term “selectorate”? What is the special meaning that you are applying here? I don’t understand how it’s not an “electorate”.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
I don't tend to win on leadership contests either. I tend to favour the best candidates, and they rarely win in an era of killer clown leaders.
By "best" candidates, I assume you mean those with whom you agree most?
If so, that's why I bet more on US politics than UK politics. I have much stronger views on UK politics, and find it difficult to tell whether I think someone will win, or want them to.
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
I don't think thr Magic Grandpa persona came about until after he was elected. I think his attraction to the selectorate was that he was a gnarled old firebrand who reflected how they really felt about things. That, and the meh-ness of two if the other three and the fact that the third was saying things they didn't want to hear. That said, Lavery's leftness is different to Corbyn's. Many of the Guardian-reading classes rather liked Corbyn's Palestine obsession. Lavery's more industrial leftiness may leave them colder.
Why do you (and you’re not the only one) specifically and deliberately use the term “selectorate”? What is the special meaning that you are applying here? I don’t understand how it’s not an “electorate”.
I may be wrong, but I think its used mostly to avoid any potential overlap with 'the' electorate, that being the public, and 'the Labour membership electorate'. So one can talk about needing to appeal to the electorate, the public, and the selectorate, the electorate which will actually select the labour leader.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is.
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
At least Boris is genuinely posh, and doesn't try to hide the fact. Jess talks about not being able to afford reebok classics, cars being set on fire down her street, there being "no one like Nigel Farage at HER (middle class all girl grammar) school.
It's all so try hard, and disingenuous, albeit I think it will play well with Labour voters. I think she has got "known by first name" potential
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
All the female candidates would make terrible PMs (except Cooper). But I'll say this for them - at least they wouldn't be as terrible as that terrible New Zealand woman.
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
I don't think thr Magic Grandpa persona came about until after he was elected. I think his attraction to the selectorate was that he was a gnarled old firebrand who reflected how they really felt about things. That, and the meh-ness of two if the other three and the fact that the third was saying things they didn't want to hear. That said, Lavery's leftness is different to Corbyn's. Many of the Guardian-reading classes rather liked Corbyn's Palestine obsession. Lavery's more industrial leftiness may leave them colder.
Why do you (and you’re not the only one) specifically and deliberately use the term “selectorate”? What is the special meaning that you are applying here? I don’t understand how it’s not an “electorate”.
I may be wrong, but I think its used mostly to avoid any potential overlap with 'the' electorate, that being the public, and 'the Labour membership electorate'. So one can talk about needing to appeal to the electorate, the public, and the selectorate, the electorate which will actually select the labour leader.
Yes, exactly - and also to note that it isn't exactly a straight and evenly-weighted election - though is more than it used to be. I don't mean anything pejorative by it.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
To take the commercials further for the BBC, imagine BBC negotiates an equity stake (10-30%?) in womens football, broadcasts 4 matches a week live on bbc1 for the next ten years to grow the sport. The budget needed for that is not much more than the collective pay for the myriad of ex footballers they are currently paying for, perhaps less. At the end of the decade they have a realistic chance of £100m+ equity to come back and it nails their public service obligations.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is.
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
At least Boris is genuinely posh, and doesn't try to hide the fact. Jess talks about not being able to afford reebok classics, cars being set on fire down her street, there being "no one like Nigel Farage at HER (middle class all girl grammar) school.
It's all so try hard, and disingenuous, albeit I think it will play well with Labour voters. I think she has got "known by first name" potential
Being shallow for a minute (I like to play to my strengths), Jess's biggest handicap is that she has overplayed the Brummie card. To many, sounding Brum = sounding dumb. There's a reason Japsper Carrott and Mrs. Overall and Benny from Crossroads never got to be PM ahead of her.
Personally, I like the sing-song lilt of a good Brummie twang, but it is often despised (my wife cannot stand it). And being Brum might win back Northfield, but I'm not sure how many more. Will the NE take to her? Yorkshire? Will even the Black Country? She's not exactly "one of our own"....
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Well it is both. Clearly she was not literal, but it also doesn't pass the 'would I defend an opponent saying the same thing?' test.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Letterbox was a simile rather than a metaphor, and it was offensive because it was aimed at a whole group of people, not just one person. The usage 'to knife someone in the back' is a well understood metaphor, common to English discourse.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is.
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
At least Boris is genuinely posh, and doesn't try to hide the fact. Jess talks about not being able to afford reebok classics, cars being set on fire down her street, there being "no one like Nigel Farage at HER (middle class all girl grammar) school.
It's all so try hard, and disingenuous, albeit I think it will play well with Labour voters. I think she has got "known by first name" potential
Thinking about that, the only place I have ever met people remotely like Nigel Farage was when working in the city where they were a dime a dozen. Never anywhere else.
I don't think thr Magic Grandpa persona came about until after he was elected. I think his attraction to the selectorate was that he was a gnarled old firebrand who reflected how they really felt about things. That, and the meh-ness of two if the other three and the fact that the third was saying things they didn't want to hear. That said, Lavery's leftness is different to Corbyn's. Many of the Guardian-reading classes rather liked Corbyn's Palestine obsession. Lavery's more industrial leftiness may leave them colder.
Just to nip in and say, as a member, having Lavery as leader would feel all wrong. My sense is it would be a big mistake too. I would caution the party against doing the kneejerk obvious thing, which is to chase after the lost WWC voters. People don't respect you if you're slobbering all over them. There's no dignity in that. Much better IMO to build an inclusive coalition based on progressive economic and social values. It is then up to each and every voter, wherever they reside, and whatever their identity and class and circumstances, to ask themselves "Do I share these values?" If so, great, vote Labour. If not, don't.
Nandy for me, I think, but I plan to take the decision seriously, read things, go to hustings etc.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
To take the commercials further for the BBC, imagine BBC negotiates an equity stake (10-30%?) in womens football, broadcasts 4 matches a week live on bbc1 for the next ten years to grow the sport. The budget needed for that is not much more than the collective pay for the myriad of ex footballers they are currently paying for, perhaps less. At the end of the decade they have a realistic chance of £100m+ equity to come back and it nails their public service obligations.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
To take the commercials further for the BBC, imagine BBC negotiates an equity stake (10-30%?) in womens football, broadcasts 4 matches a week live on bbc1 for the next ten years to grow the sport. The budget needed for that is not much more than the collective pay for the myriad of ex footballers they are currently paying for, perhaps less. At the end of the decade they have a realistic chance of £100m+ equity to come back and it nails their public service obligations.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I've become a bit more optimistic in the last few days. Nandy, Starmer and Phillips would all represent a return to sanity, the first step on the road to electability. It does appear that the membership are not inclining to either Lavery or Long-Bailey, which is encouraging.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Letterbox was a simile rather than a metaphor, and it was offensive because it was aimed at a whole group of people, not just one person. The usage 'to knife someone in the back' is a well understood metaphor, common to English discourse.
To stab someone in the back is a well understood metaphor.
The change of "stab" to "knife" is significant (especially in view of current plethora of knife crime). And the change of "back" to "front" makes it doubly unpleasant.
It was a nasty think to say. But, exactly what I would expect from a bawling hypocrite like Jess.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Letterbox was a simile rather than a metaphor, and it was offensive because it was aimed at a whole group of people, not just one person. The usage 'to knife someone in the back' is a well understood metaphor, common to English discourse.
To stab someone in the back is a well understood metaphor.
The change of "stab" to "knife" is significant (especially in view of current plethora of knife crime). And the change of "back" to "front" makes it doubly unpleasant.
It was a nasty think to say. But, exactly what I would expect from a bawling hypocrite like Jess.
I see the Corbynista war on metaphor continues apace. If only they disliked antisemites as much as they do allegories.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Words exist in their wider contexts and intent.
I struggle to imagine Corbyn or Corbynites being afraid of violence from Jess supporters. I know people who are afraid of violence from far right supporters encouraged to believe their actions are ok because of the PMs language.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
To take the commercials further for the BBC, imagine BBC negotiates an equity stake (10-30%?) in womens football, broadcasts 4 matches a week live on bbc1 for the next ten years to grow the sport. The budget needed for that is not much more than the collective pay for the myriad of ex footballers they are currently paying for, perhaps less. At the end of the decade they have a realistic chance of £100m+ equity to come back and it nails their public service obligations.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Letterbox was a simile rather than a metaphor, and it was offensive because it was aimed at a whole group of people, not just one person. The usage 'to knife someone in the back' is a well understood metaphor, common to English discourse.
To stab someone in the back is a well understood metaphor.
The change of "stab" to "knife" is significant (especially in view of current plethora of knife crime). And the change of "back" to "front" makes it doubly unpleasant.
It was a nasty think to say. But, exactly what I would expect from a bawling hypocrite like Jess.
I see the Corbynista war on metaphor continues apace. If only they disliked antisemites as much as they do allegories.
At least Boris is genuinely posh, and doesn't try to hide the fact. Jess talks about not being able to afford reebok classics, cars being set on fire down her street, there being "no one like Nigel Farage at HER (middle class all girl grammar) school.
It's all so try hard, and disingenuous, albeit I think it will play well with Labour voters. I think she has got "known by first name" potential
Yes, it would be "Boris" vs "Jess" across the despatch box.
In class terms a "16" vs an "11" - in case you're interested.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
To take the commercials further for the BBC, imagine BBC negotiates an equity stake (10-30%?) in womens football, broadcasts 4 matches a week live on bbc1 for the next ten years to grow the sport. The budget needed for that is not much more than the collective pay for the myriad of ex footballers they are currently paying for, perhaps less. At the end of the decade they have a realistic chance of £100m+ equity to come back and it nails their public service obligations.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Words exist in their wider contexts and intent.
I struggle to imagine Corbyn or Corbynites being afraid of violence from Jess supporters. I know people who are afraid of violence from far right supporters encouraged to believe their actions are ok because of the PMs language.
I think it is difficult to judge, actually.
Before the murder of Jo Cox, two of the most prominent political assassinations in the West were those of Pim Fortyn and the republican Theo van Gogh.
I don't like Nigel Farage at all, but I can easily imagine opponents of his taking much stronger action than just throwing a milkshake. As indeed a prominent comedian advocated !
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Words exist in their wider contexts and intent.
I struggle to imagine Corbyn or Corbynites being afraid of violence from Jess supporters. I know people who are afraid of violence from far right supporters encouraged to believe their actions are ok because of the PMs language.
I think it is difficult to judge, actually.
Before the murder of Jo Cox, two of the most prominent political assassinations in the West were those of Pim Fortyn and the republican Theo van Gogh.
I don't like Nigel Farage at all, but I can easily imagine opponents of his taking much stronger action than just throwing a milkshake. As indeed a prominent comedian advocated !
I can imagine Farage being physically afraid of extreme leftists absolutely, and the language used against him was therefore far more problematic than Jess on Corbyn.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
SNIP
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You watch your crappy women's football all you want - No idea why I should have to be TV taxed for you to do so though.
Letterbox was a simile rather than a metaphor, and it was offensive because it was aimed at a whole group of people, not just one person. The usage 'to knife someone in the back' is a well understood metaphor, common to English discourse.
It's not just the language that should be compared. There is also the intent.
Phillips was saying she would criticize Corbyn to his face.
The more I hear of Adrian Chiles the more I like him. He asks his interviewees the questions you want to ask them (there was a great extended piece on Iran yesterday on his show) and does it with great style.
He is a Brummie is he not? Would be Prime Ministers could do worse than emulate him.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
SNIP
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You watch your crappy women's football all you want - No idea why I should have to be TV taxed for you to do so though.
A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.
I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.
Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.
What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?
That was also wrong but it was stridently criticised (McDonnell did not though, I believe, apologise).
My point is Jess-fans seems willing to forgive a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
Possibly, it's just that they understand metaphor?
That is an interesting defence of "letterbox".
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
Words exist in their wider contexts and intent.
I struggle to imagine Corbyn or Corbynites being afraid of violence from Jess supporters. I know people who are afraid of violence from far right supporters encouraged to believe their actions are ok because of the PMs language.
I think it is difficult to judge, actually.
Before the murder of Jo Cox, two of the most prominent political assassinations in the West were those of Pim Fortyn and the republican Theo van Gogh.
I don't like Nigel Farage at all, but I can easily imagine opponents of his taking much stronger action than just throwing a milkshake. As indeed a prominent comedian advocated !
I can imagine Farage being afraid of extreme leftists absolutely, and the language used against him was therefore far more problematic than Jess on Corbyn.
I think that is a fair comment. Nigel Farage had good reasons to be very nervous.
I think Jo Brand's comment was incredibly dangerous & stupid.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
SNIP
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You watch your crappy women's football all you want - No idea why I should have to be TV taxed for you to do so though.
You dont have to.
Oh do shut up. I to have to pay the licence fee if I want to watch TV.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
s
SNIP
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You watch your crappy women's football all you want - No idea why I should have to be TV taxed for you to do so though.
You dont have to.
Oh do shut up. I to have to pay the licence fee if I want to watch TV.
Get a grip
No, you dont. You are living in the past. You can watch TV through other platforms than digital terrestrial which dont require a license. You are choosing to pay, it is far from compulsory.
And my suggestion was to reduce BBC spending whilst boosting income, so hardly damaging to license payers.
I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.
You're right that there is a push to elevate Women's team sports above what is atm the genuine level of interest in them. However, there is a good reason for this. Team sports are an extremely healthy thing for young people to get into. It is therefore important that it does not become an area that is effectively boys only. So the irritation that you and others (including myself if I'm honest) feel about Women's team sports sometimes being rather more "in your face" than you would like is IMO a price worth paying for the benefits being sought.
The crowds in women’s football are going up. There were over 30,000 at Spurs to see the North London derby, I think.
Yes, it is the same with the age-old controversy over women's tennis. If the aim of women's football is to play in men's teams, clearly it is not good enough.
But if the measure of success is bums on seats, then women's football is up there and keep an eye on women's cricket as well.
The change in football spectating in my lifetime has been amazing. As teenagers we used to get the tube to Upton Park to watch West Ham and stand in the South Bank for the atmosphere, the undercurrent of violence, the what would now be regarded as offensive chanting and the ridiculously dangerous terrace surges as much as the game (especially those of us who weren't West Ham fans). Now it is a family day out for both sexes and all ages, which is an improvement, but where do the lads go that like that kind of thing? I guess it was the hoodies and gangs on bikes of its day
Yep - it is totally different in almost every way. I remember the old Spion Kop at Birmingham City. It was terracing all the way down one side of the ground. There was a bloke's toilet at the top of it which was basically a wall you pissed against. In the second half of games there were rivers of wee running down the terracing. They'd close stadiums down if that happened now.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
s
SNIP
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You watch your crappy women's football all you want - No idea why I should have to be TV taxed for you to do so though.
You dont have to.
Oh do shut up. I to have to pay the licence fee if I want to watch TV.
Get a grip
No, you dont. You are living in the past. You can watch TV through other platforms than digital terrestrial which dont require a license. You are choosing to pay, it is far from compulsory.
And my suggestion was to reduce BBC spending whilst boosting income, so hardly damaging to license payers.
Sorry, I just can't engage with this level of drivel.
What is the administration up to ? Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ? (There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
s
SNIP
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more polic interest and whiterest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You watch your crappy women's football all you want - No idea why I should have to be TV taxed for you to do so though.
You dont have to.
Oh do shut up. I to have to pay the licence fee if I want to watch TV.
Get a grip
No, you dont. You are living in the past. You can watch TV through other platforms than digital terrestrial which dont require a license. You are choosing to pay, it is far from compulsory.
And my suggestion was to reduce BBC spending whilst boosting income, so hardly damaging to license payers.
Dont watch or record live TV, dont use bbc iplayer, entirely free of criminal risk. Unlawfully download the odd bit of bbc content makes you liable for civil penalties but very difficult to bring civil prosecutions compared to license dodging.
Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)
I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.
Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting
Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense
Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.
It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.
Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.
Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.
If I recall my Shipman correctly, didn't Dom eschew Facebook ads in favour of other online methods? Or have I misunderstood?
The more I hear of Adrian Chiles the more I like him. He asks his interviewees the questions you want to ask them (there was a great extended piece on Iran yesterday on his show) and does it with great style.
He is a Brummie is he not? Would be Prime Ministers could do worse than emulate him.
Ask England footbal fans what they think about Adrian Chiles.
There's a reason he doesn't do footie on the telly any more......
The more I hear of Adrian Chiles the more I like him. He asks his interviewees the questions you want to ask them (there was a great extended piece on Iran yesterday on his show) and does it with great style.
He is a Brummie is he not? Would be Prime Ministers could do worse than emulate him.
I think he may be a Black Country man. He's a West Brom supporter.
Jess Phillips does not have a particularly strong accent. It is pretty standard Brummie. If you watch her launch video it is quite mild compared to some of the other people who speak in it.
Letterbox was a simile rather than a metaphor, and it was offensive because it was aimed at a whole group of people, not just one person. The usage 'to knife someone in the back' is a well understood metaphor, common to English discourse.
It's not just the language that should be compared. There is also the intent.
Phillips was saying she would criticize Corbyn to his face.
Johnson was taking the piss out of Muslim women.
Hardly. Only a small fraction of Muslim women wear the burka. (I recall Rowan Atkinson defending Johnson's joke as a good one).
However, my point is that Jess and Boris are very similar in that, in their use of language, "they shoot first, ask questions later" (to use a suitably violent metaphor).
Whoever is pushing Long-Bailey into contesting the leadership is being really unfair on her. She is clearly nowhere near ready and exhibits no real desire to do the job. She has nothing to say. She would be much better off not standing. Even if she wins she’ll not last.
Yep - it is totally different in almost every way. I remember the old Spion Kop at Birmingham City. It was terracing all the way down one side of the ground. There was a bloke's toilet at the top of it which was basically a wall you pissed against. In the second half of games there were rivers of wee running down the terracing. They'd close stadiums down if that happened now.
And the meat pie at half time with a filling the temperature of Mount Etna.
Whoever is pushing Long-Bailey into contesting the leadership is being really unfair on her. She is clearly nowhere near ready and exhibits no real desire to do the job. She has nothing to say. She would be much better off not standing. Even if she wins she’ll not last.
I thought being a woman was sufficient these days?
Letterbox was a simile rather than a metaphor, and it was offensive because it was aimed at a whole group of people, not just one person. The usage 'to knife someone in the back' is a well understood metaphor, common to English discourse.
It's not just the language that should be compared. There is also the intent.
Phillips was saying she would criticize Corbyn to his face.
Johnson was taking the piss out of Muslim women.
The piss out of muslim women who insist on dressing like chattel and broadcasting their worthiness like the whiteadder puritans.
Hardly. Only a small fraction of Muslim women wear the burka. (I recall Rowan Atkinson defending Johnson's joke as a good one).
However, my point is that Jess and Boris are very similar in that, in their use of language, "they shoot first, ask questions later" (to use a suitably violent metaphor).
That approach rarely ends well in politics.
OK, taking the piss out of (some) Muslim women. Not what you want in a PM. And TBF it was before he was. Let's see from now on. Any repeat of that sort of thing would be extremely disappointing to put it mildly.
I agree at least a little bit with your take on Jess Phillips. I'm unlikely to vote for her as leader.
Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.
I don't think thr Magic Grandpa persona came about until after he was elected. I think his attraction to the selectorate was that he was a gnarled old firebrand who reflected how they really felt about things. That, and the meh-ness of two if the other three and the fact that the third was saying things they didn't want to hear. That said, Lavery's leftness is different to Corbyn's. Many of the Guardian-reading classes rather liked Corbyn's Palestine obsession. Lavery's more industrial leftiness may leave them colder.
Why do you (and you’re not the only one) specifically and deliberately use the term “selectorate”? What is the special meaning that you are applying here? I don’t understand how it’s not an “electorate”.
The selectorate are the people who will select the next leader of the labour party, the electorate are the ones that will elect the next prime minister. What appeals to one doesnt necessarily to the other.
What is the administration up to ? Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ? (There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Would that be another precisely calibrated action to prevent war ... ?
For Trump, winning is simply the other guy losing. With an opponent like Iran, that approach could lead you along a very lengthy path.
I see the Corbynista war on metaphor continues apace. If only they disliked antisemites as much as they do allegories.
Whether talking about letterboxes or metaphorical knifings, we need to get back to the wise old saying:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones ..."
It is good advice for a kid but in reality its just not true. Of course words hurt, and their impact is often life long.
Tough. Suck it up. There is a line, but it needs to be egregious or inciting, neither of these examples even come close to approaching a line, in fact the line is so far away you'll need a good pair of binoculars.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You weren’t measuring them on the same terms though! But I agree the public interest is real 👍🏻
The piss out of muslim women who insist on dressing like chattel and broadcasting their worthiness like the whiteadder puritans.
See now this is fine as pub talk or as part of the free flowing banter and discussion in places like this. Ditto taking the piss out of the more neanderthal end of the Leave vote (something I am occasionally prone to). But from national politicians in national newspapers? No. Cheap and inappropriate.
Hardly. Only a small fraction of Muslim women wear the burka. (I recall Rowan Atkinson defending Johnson's joke as a good one).
However, my point is that Jess and Boris are very similar in that, in their use of language, "they shoot first, ask questions later" (to use a suitably violent metaphor).
That approach rarely ends well in politics.
OK, taking the piss out of (some) Muslim women. Not what you want in a PM. And TBF it was before he was. Let's see from now on. Any repeat of that sort of thing would be extremely disappointing to put it mildly.
I agree at least a little bit with your take on Jess Phillips. I'm unlikely to vote for her as leader.
I think that Nandy and Rayner look promising (at least worth an honest hearing).
I am more positive on Long-Bailey than others -- since she told the fuckwits who run Welsh Labour that there needs to be an inquiry into the failings at Cwn Taf maternity hospital
It seems to me to show a readiness to accept that things may need investigating even when your own side may be in the wrong -- which I liked. I think Long-Bailey, if she makes the right moves, could be much better than suggested by the tired old Blairites on pb.com.
I think Thornberry and Starmer are too London-centric for a party that now needs reach out (the last two leaders were London-based).
I think Phillips would be like a ticking bomb. I don't like Lewis at all.
The piss out of muslim women who insist on dressing like chattel and broadcasting their worthiness like the whiteadder puritans.
See now this is fine as pub talk or as part of the free flowing banter and discussion in places like this. Ditto taking the piss out of the more neanderthal end of the Leave vote (something I am occasionally prone to). But from national politicians in national newspapers? No. Cheap and inappropriate.
I see the Corbynista war on metaphor continues apace. If only they disliked antisemites as much as they do allegories.
Whether talking about letterboxes or metaphorical knifings, we need to get back to the wise old saying:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones ..."
It is good advice for a kid but in reality its just not true. Of course words hurt, and their impact is often life long.
Tough. Suck it up. There is a line, but it needs to be egregious or inciting, neither of these examples even come close to approaching a line, in fact the line is so far away you'll need a good pair of binoculars.
Inciting is rightly the line for comments being criminal, and I agree neither comment is anywhere near that level. The line for comments displaying good judgement for a leader or potential leader are surely completely different? And the line for comments being polite is different again.
If Rayner wants this she should make her move. While not a true Corbynista she is the Left's best hope of frustrating the hopes of the north London intelligentsia wing. She would also seriously get up Boris's wick far more so than Long-Bailey or the overrated Phillips.
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Iran's task is now (so I hear) to retaliate in a way that makes America wish to allah that they had not just done what they have done but yet does not cause America to escalate again thus moving towards what could be called a "war". This strikes me as being almost by definition not possible.
Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.
.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You weren’t measuring them on the same terms though! But I agree the public interest is real 👍🏻
Fair enough, just for you:
Mens WC semi final 26.5m vs Womens 11.7m Mens WC final 11.4m v Womens 4.7m Mens Manchester Derby 54403, Womens 31213 (note price difference and max capacity!)
What is the administration up to ? Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ? (There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
I googled DVDA. And now I have to clear down my browser history again....
Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)
I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.
Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting
Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense
Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.
It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.
Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.
Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.
If I recall my Shipman correctly, didn't Dom eschew Facebook ads in favour of other online methods? Or have I misunderstood?
Is there anyway of finding out exactly what the parties were doing on social media. Actual ads, target audience, etc, etc in detail. I'm completely out of this loop. I saw nothing. Only ad I saw on Facebook was for something called Sweaty Betty leggings for women exercising and I really can't think of anything about me or my viewing habits that could have resulted in that ad!
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Iran's task is now (so I hear) to retaliate in a way that makes America wish to allah that they had not just done what they have done but yet does not cause America to escalate again thus moving towards what could be called a "war". This strikes me as being almost by definition not possible.
It could be an ironic swansong for the mighty F-14.
I see the Corbynista war on metaphor continues apace. If only they disliked antisemites as much as they do allegories.
Whether talking about letterboxes or metaphorical knifings, we need to get back to the wise old saying:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones ..."
It is good advice for a kid but in reality its just not true. Of course words hurt, and their impact is often life long.
Tough. Suck it up. There is a line, but it needs to be egregious or inciting, neither of these examples even come close to approaching a line, in fact the line is so far away you'll need a good pair of binoculars.
If I understand people correctly, "the line" is over-the-horizon when it comes to attacking people they don't like, but right next to their feet when it comes to attacking people they do like.
The other day somebody used a violent metaphor when describing somebody and PBers were up in arms ("I cannot understand how somebody could wish death on another", or some similar gubbins). It was closely followed by the real-life assassination of that Iraqi man, and the same people were in favor, sometimes vehemently.
So although I understand your argument, I'm not expecting it to be applied consistently.
I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events
We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Not the sport, the flag. People will watch in big numbers if it is the England/GB team, whatever. Look at how many people watched the Olympic curling. BBC could probably get exclusive rights to international curling for £40....
WSL had a 31213 paying crowd this season. You are out of date, things are changing.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
I am on the side of women’s football promotion, but that last comparison is a bit poor form. If any men’s Premier League game were on the BBC it would almost certainly get over 4.7m viewers wouldn’t it? They don’t get that many because they’re on subscription channels
Yes of course it would get more. The point is not that womens football is more popular or even as popular as mens football, that would be absurd. The point is that there is real public interest and whilst ten years ago there was an order of magnitude difference in the level of public interest, today the gap between men and womens football audiences can be measured on the same scale.
You weren’t measuring them on the same terms though! But I agree the public interest is real 👍🏻
Fair enough, just for you:
Mens WC semi final 26.5m vs Womens 11.7m Mens WC final 11.4m v Womens 4.7m Mens Manchester Derby 54403, Womens 31213 (note price difference and max capacity!)
A ratio somewhere around 2.5:1 looks about right.
An interesting experiment would be to ask people to say what was the score in the last Man City men's game and what was the score in the last Man City women's game.
Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)
I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.
Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting
Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense
Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.
It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.
Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.
Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.
If I recall my Shipman correctly, didn't Dom eschew Facebook ads in favour of other online methods? Or have I misunderstood?
Is there anyway of finding out exactly what the parties were doing on social media. Actual ads, target audience, etc, etc in detail. I'm completely out of this loop. I saw nothing. Only ad I saw on Facebook was for something called Sweaty Betty leggings for women exercising and I really can't think of anything about me or my viewing habits that could have resulted in that ad!
Try looking at what Who Targets Me have published.
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Iran's task is now (so I hear) to retaliate in a way that makes America wish to allah that they had not just done what they have done but yet does not cause America to escalate again thus moving towards what could be called a "war". This strikes me as being almost by definition not possible.
It could be an ironic swansong for the mighty F-14.
There's a F14 in the trailer for the new Top Gun movie: people have speculated that this means Iran is involved in the plot.
Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)
I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.
Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting
Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense
Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.
It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.
Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.
Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.
If I recall my Shipman correctly, didn't Dom eschew Facebook ads in favour of other online methods? Or have I misunderstood?
Loves Facebook but not Twitter (which has now banned political adverts anyway) or WhatsApp.
Here is Dom describing how Leave won. It sounds like he is talking just after GE2017 from a throwaway line but it does not really matter. https://youtu.be/CDbRxH9Kiy4
One of the things Dom describes is using Facebook's advertising criteria to break down surveys into subsamples which meant they could then use the exact same criteria to feed back into Facebook's targeted advertising.
Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)
I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.
Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting
Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense
Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.
It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.
Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.
Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.
If I recall my Shipman correctly, didn't Dom eschew Facebook ads in favour of other online methods? Or have I misunderstood?
Loves Facebook but not Twitter (which has now banned political adverts anyway) or WhatsApp.
Here is Dom describing how Leave won. It sounds like he is talking just after GE2017 from a throwaway line but it does not really matter. https://youtu.be/CDbRxH9Kiy4
One of the things Dom describes is using Facebook's advertising criteria to break down surveys into subsamples which meant they could then use the exact same criteria to feed back into Facebook's targeted advertising.
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Iran's task is now (so I hear) to retaliate in a way that makes America wish to allah that they had not just done what they have done but yet does not cause America to escalate again thus moving towards what could be called a "war". This strikes me as being almost by definition not possible.
It could be an ironic swansong for the mighty F-14.
There's a F14 in the trailer for the new Top Gun movie: people have speculated that this means Iran is involved in the plot.
I refuse to watch it on the grounds that I'll find it intensely annoying.
The APG-71 radar in the F-14 is probably vulnerable to ECM now but in its day it was simply incredible. We could do 24 target track while scan and 6 target simultaneous engagement at up to 180km with RAP out out 600km via Hawkeye datalink. Then when we were bored with killing everyone we could go 68 wing/stage 5 AB and pull 7G+ M2.0 on the way home.
It did need 45-50 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight though, so there's that.
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Iran's task is now (so I hear) to retaliate in a way that makes America wish to allah that they had not just done what they have done but yet does not cause America to escalate again thus moving towards what could be called a "war". This strikes me as being almost by definition not possible.
Take down a bunch of private companies' networks in a single sector for a couple of days - ideally trucking or something mundane but commercially important. The US can't retailate in kind because Iran doesn't have as much automation, and if they're tempted to retaliate militarily they won't know how much additional capability Iran has to disrupt other parts of their economy. They can also make the attribution ambiguous enough that the US have the ability to deescalate, by not blaming the attack on Iran.
I doubt a full on DVDA war is the objective; after all what would victory look like?
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
Iran's task is now (so I hear) to retaliate in a way that makes America wish to allah that they had not just done what they have done but yet does not cause America to escalate again thus moving towards what could be called a "war". This strikes me as being almost by definition not possible.
It could be an ironic swansong for the mighty F-14.
There's a F14 in the trailer for the new Top Gun movie: people have speculated that this means Iran is involved in the plot.
The more I hear of Adrian Chiles the more I like him. He asks his interviewees the questions you want to ask them (there was a great extended piece on Iran yesterday on his show) and does it with great style.
He is a Brummie is he not? Would be Prime Ministers could do worse than emulate him.
Ask England footbal fans what they think about Adrian Chiles.
There's a reason he doesn't do footie on the telly any more......
Yes he was awful. But his radio shows are excellent.
The more I hear of Adrian Chiles the more I like him. He asks his interviewees the questions you want to ask them (there was a great extended piece on Iran yesterday on his show) and does it with great style.
He is a Brummie is he not? Would be Prime Ministers could do worse than emulate him.
Ask England footbal fans what they think about Adrian Chiles.
There's a reason he doesn't do footie on the telly any more......
Yes he was awful. But his radio shows are excellent.
Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)
I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.
Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting
Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense
Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.
It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.
Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.
Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.
If I recall my Shipman correctly, didn't Dom eschew Facebook ads in favour of other online methods? Or have I misunderstood?
Yes, tories spent much less than Labour on FB, but more than Labour on Google searches
Comments
Where are we to find our Atherton today?
However, we have Jos Buttler not Quinton de Kock at no.7.
I do wonder what Trump is thinking when they do all that weird mass prayer laying-on-of-hands though. I don’t have him down as a man of god, it’s a role he plays because some weird midwesterners seem to have gone through the looking glass and staked their future on a man who is decidedly un-Christian.
Still, we are at least looking to justify the move to 4 day tests...
That said, Lavery's leftness is different to Corbyn's. Many of the Guardian-reading classes rather liked Corbyn's Palestine obsession. Lavery's more industrial leftiness may leave them colder.
My point is Jess-fans seem willing to forgive or overlook a lot.
Jess is the closest candidate to Boris, as she seems to be actively contriving a tribute act.
Lovable, loud-mouth, scatter-haired Brummie, speaking it like it is. For "letterboxes", read "stabbing".
But, when the voters fall out of love with Boris (as they will), I am not sure they will want a Bootleg Boris.
If so, that's why I bet more on US politics than UK politics. I have much stronger views on UK politics, and find it difficult to tell whether I think someone will win, or want them to.
It's all so try hard, and disingenuous, albeit I think it will play well with Labour voters. I think she has got "known by first name" potential
Looking up Jess's words, she said she would "knife Corbyn in the front". I think that is worse, actually.
It is curious how Boris' language is judged inflammatory, but Jess' is judged metaphorical.
England v USA womens game had an audience of 11.7m, the mens Champions league final had an audience of 11.3m so views that there is an orders of magnitude difference in public interest are out of date.
Personally, I like the sing-song lilt of a good Brummie twang, but it is often despised (my wife cannot stand it). And being Brum might win back Northfield, but I'm not sure how many more. Will the NE take to her? Yorkshire? Will even the Black Country? She's not exactly "one of our own"....
Given Jezza got 2 GE’s - might she have to wait until 2029 ?
Nandy for me, I think, but I plan to take the decision seriously, read things, go to hustings etc.
The World Cup final without England also had 4.7m viewers, more than any mens premier league game.
The change of "stab" to "knife" is significant (especially in view of current plethora of knife crime). And the change of "back" to "front" makes it doubly unpleasant.
It was a nasty think to say. But, exactly what I would expect from a bawling hypocrite like Jess.
I struggle to imagine Corbyn or Corbynites being afraid of violence from Jess supporters.
I know people who are afraid of violence from far right supporters encouraged to believe their actions are ok because of the PMs language.
In class terms a "16" vs an "11" - in case you're interested.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones ..."
Before the murder of Jo Cox, two of the most prominent political assassinations in the West were those of Pim Fortyn and the republican Theo van Gogh.
I don't like Nigel Farage at all, but I can easily imagine opponents of his taking much stronger action than just throwing a milkshake. As indeed a prominent comedian advocated !
Phillips was saying she would criticize Corbyn to his face.
Johnson was taking the piss out of Muslim women.
He is a Brummie is he not? Would be Prime Ministers could do worse than emulate him.
I think Jo Brand's comment was incredibly dangerous & stupid.
Get a grip
And my suggestion was to reduce BBC spending whilst boosting income, so hardly damaging to license payers.
But the giant refinery at Abadan going up in flames after a fleeting visit from CVW-1 would be a fine backdrop to a re-election campaign.
There's a reason he doesn't do footie on the telly any more......
Jess Phillips does not have a particularly strong accent. It is pretty standard Brummie. If you watch her launch video it is quite mild compared to some of the other people who speak in it.
However, my point is that Jess and Boris are very similar in that, in their use of language, "they shoot first, ask questions later" (to use a suitably violent metaphor).
That approach rarely ends well in politics.
*innocent face*
I agree at least a little bit with your take on Jess Phillips. I'm unlikely to vote for her as leader.
For Trump, winning is simply the other guy losing. With an opponent like Iran, that approach could lead you along a very lengthy path.
I am more positive on Long-Bailey than others -- since she told the fuckwits who run Welsh Labour that there needs to be an inquiry into the failings at Cwn Taf maternity hospital
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50608251
It seems to me to show a readiness to accept that things may need investigating even when your own side may be in the wrong -- which I liked. I think Long-Bailey, if she makes the right moves, could be much better than suggested by the tired old Blairites on pb.com.
I think Thornberry and Starmer are too London-centric for a party that now needs reach out (the last two leaders were London-based).
I think Phillips would be like a ticking bomb. I don't like Lewis at all.
the overrated Phillips.
Mens WC semi final 26.5m vs Womens 11.7m
Mens WC final 11.4m v Womens 4.7m
Mens Manchester Derby 54403, Womens 31213 (note price difference and max capacity!)
A ratio somewhere around 2.5:1 looks about right.
The other day somebody used a violent metaphor when describing somebody and PBers were up in arms ("I cannot understand how somebody could wish death on another", or some similar gubbins). It was closely followed by the real-life assassination of that Iraqi man, and the same people were in favor, sometimes vehemently.
So although I understand your argument, I'm not expecting it to be applied consistently.
https://whotargets.me/en/
https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe
The amount of data they publish is limited but it does give you a flavour of who's spending what and where.
Here is Dom describing how Leave won. It sounds like he is talking just after GE2017 from a throwaway line but it does not really matter.
https://youtu.be/CDbRxH9Kiy4
One of the things Dom describes is using Facebook's advertising criteria to break down surveys into subsamples which meant they could then use the exact same criteria to feed back into Facebook's targeted advertising.
The APG-71 radar in the F-14 is probably vulnerable to ECM now but in its day it was simply incredible. We could do 24 target track while scan and 6 target simultaneous engagement at up to 180km with RAP out out 600km via Hawkeye datalink. Then when we were bored with killing everyone we could go 68 wing/stage 5 AB and pull 7G+ M2.0 on the way home.
It did need 45-50 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight though, so there's that.