The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.
Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election
Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
I am to be honest.
I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
Except that polling evidence suggests it was largely Corbyn not the policies that sunk Labour in December. They came within 2 points of the Tories two years earlier even with Corbyn at the helm.
You had better cross your fingers that Johnson actually delivers on his breezy optimistic vision of Brexit Britain or who knows what the voters will do next time.
Have you read Lord Ashcroft's polling report on labour's GE released this week
Yes. Which particular aspect do you feel Keir is not addressing?
Starmer is ignoring the message and pandering to the members to get elected
How else is he supposed to get elected?
Showing leadership rather than a bit of left wing leg...?
If he isn't capable of speaking difficult truths to the membership, he isn't a leader.
He also isn’t a leader if he doesn’t get elected. This is politics. Boris Johnson spouted almost constant drivel in order to get elected. He told everyone what they wanted to hear. Keir Starmer is doing the same.
Johnson didn't spout drivel. He said what he was going to do, sought to do it and is now doing it.
Since the license fee has become a hot topic on this thread....
A decade or so ago, long before the law change on iPlayer, I didn't have a TV license. At the time, I listened to Radio 4 all of the time, as well as other BBC stations. I used the BBC website a lot. The value of the BBC was far greater than the cost of the license fee. So in the end I decided to get a TV license, even though I wasn't legally obliged to.
The thing that stopped me doing so much earlier was the moronic approach to enforcing the license fee. Essentially a person would turn up at my door with a badge that doesn't look different from something a criminal could cheaply reproduce, and demanded to search my house. If I asked them to give a verifiable telephone number I could call to verify that they were legitimate, they were unable to. They then would start making veiled threats. And of course, as a private company, there was no accountability.
But worse than that: throughout this period, I had the option not to fund the BBC, but I was compelled to fund the ITV, Channel 4, and so on, despite making no use of them whatsoever. I still don't use them, aside from the Six Nations, and I still fund them. The ubiquity of advertising means that there is no means of opting out of funding them that is more plausible than becoming a subsistence farmer.
Replacing the license fee with advertising as a funding model would force the BBC to focus more ruthlessly on maximising its viewers:costs ratio (clearly a bad thing, in my view). What it would absolutely would not do is increase consumer choice. It would decrease it, by replacing something that you can realistically opt out of with something that you can't.
You know that you're perfectly entitled just to shut the door on them?
When you go door-knocking, from time to time you see people putting up notices that state they have withdrawn the implied authority for people to have access to their property. I believe this is to do with TV licence enforcors/heavies.
When I see the no junk mail signs the leaflet gets pushed through the door anyway.
Someone once chased me down the road to complain and after I'd given him the whole people fought and died for this spiel he was quite contrite.
Anyway must dash. Bargain Hunt calls.
There is no implied right of access inside whatever.
Putting a political leaflet through a door, after reading a sign asking you not to, is a bit of an own goal anyway.
This is exactly the moment that Starmer should be telling the Labour membership that winning from the extreme left isn't going to be possible and campaigning to win the leadership from the centre. Instead he's completely capitulated to the left and now he's going to have to flip flop or fail at the GE.
He's a complete idiot.
He still needs to get elected - I also think he is more left wing than we are giving him credit for...
I see Joe Biden's first South Carolina rally after his New Hampshire loss was filled with supporters carrying posters saying 'South Carolina is Biden country' many of them African Americans.
George W Bush did the same in 2000 with 'South Carolina is Bush country' posters after he lost New Hampshire to McCain
At least Ed waited until the eve of the General Election to hang a ridiculous albatross of stone pledges round his neck. Starmer's getting it out of the way first thing!
The vote-rigging expansion of the franchise is now an explicit pledge as well. We see you, Labour.
The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.
Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election
Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
I am to be honest.
I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
Except that polling evidence suggests it was largely Corbyn not the policies that sunk Labour in December. They came within 2 points of the Tories two years earlier even with Corbyn at the helm.
You had better cross your fingers that Johnson actually delivers on his breezy optimistic vision of Brexit Britain or who knows what the voters will do next time.
Have you read Lord Ashcroft's polling report on labour's GE released this week
Yes. Which particular aspect do you feel Keir is not addressing?
Starmer is ignoring the message and pandering to the members to get elected
How else is he supposed to get elected?
Showing leadership rather than a bit of left wing leg...?
If he isn't capable of speaking difficult truths to the membership, he isn't a leader.
He also isn’t a leader if he doesn’t get elected. This is politics. Boris Johnson spouted almost constant drivel in order to get elected. He told everyone what they wanted to hear. Keir Starmer is doing the same.
Johnson didn't spout drivel. He said what he was going to do, sought to do it and is now doing it.
This is exactly the moment that Starmer should be telling the Labour membership that winning from the extreme left isn't going to be possible and campaigning to win the leadership from the centre. Instead he's completely capitulated to the left and now he's going to have to flip flop or fail at the GE.
The audience figures will be tiny. Their YouTube also gets bugger all views.
Again it strikes me like the BBC feel the need to produce a tech show, public service remit and all that, but what you get is a very stale product in a market that is now dominated by YouTube channels that are massive and increasingly high quality.
Another example, Marques Brownlee (MKBHD) has three 4k videos out in the last 24 hours about the new Samsung phones, about 25 minutes of footage between them, and over 6 million viewers.
If you put a gun to their head and asked people under 30 to choose between the BBC and YouTube I expect 75% or more would pick the latter.
This is exactly the moment that Starmer should be telling the Labour membership that winning from the extreme left isn't going to be possible and campaigning to win the leadership from the centre. Instead he's completely capitulated to the left and now he's going to have to flip flop or fail at the GE.
He's a complete idiot.
What particular aspect of what he has been saying do you feel is ‘extreme left’?
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
B only works if you are prepared to chase all those who prefer a, to go thought the courts, get criminal convictions and possibly end up in prison,
A will, in reality include lots of add free, or limited adds subscription service like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
This is exactly the moment that Starmer should be telling the Labour membership that winning from the extreme left isn't going to be possible and campaigning to win the leadership from the centre. Instead he's completely capitulated to the left and now he's going to have to flip flop or fail at the GE.
He's a complete idiot.
He still needs to get elected - I also think he is more left wing than we are giving him credit for...
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
The point (that you are so careful not to engage with) is that if we start allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent, then the whole system falls apart.
But you knew that, didn't you?
It should fall apart if things are luxuries not necessities. The government should not be in the business of providing luxuries and taxing you to pay for other people's tastes.
The fire brigade, NHS, Police etc are matters of life and death. Without them people can die. Without Homes Under the Hammer nobody dies. Only a fool would compare the two . . . oh I see, you knew that, didn't you?
Actually I don't think she does know it. Back to the first part of the last sentence.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
I didn’t say we should pay the BBC for it. I’m just stating a fact rather than offering a solution. Everyone used to know who the heavyweight champion of the world was. F1 used to be on in most homes on Sunday afternoons.
Now it’s just the die hards. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
Everyone* also used to know what was No. 1, even if they weren't interested. Everyone* used to know the plot lines in soaps, even if they didn't watch them. I can't really remember how, but they did. Now they don't. There are far more outlets for our time and curiousity than there used to be, and culture has fractured somewhat.
YouTube is part of a circa trillion-dollar media giant that would like to destroy and replace the BBC if it had the option. You can't compare the BBC's position regarding YouTube to entertainment content-creating supplicants like teenage YouTubers.
Yes you can, when all the kids are coming home every day and not turning on the tv to watch traditional tv, rather putting YouTube on. Most of the major US TV channels have woken up to this, the BBC haven't. You need to use YouTube to get people to interested in your content.
Indeed. The only British film critic with any real international pull is Mark Kermode, and that's just because he gets a YouTube weekly. A lot of infotainment can be done with one person facing the camera talking, and you don't need a lot of production money nor staff to do that. Combine that with fair use, clips and a Patron page, and you can compete with the big boys. Ten years ago Richard Roeper was a well-paid critic and Chris Stuckmann was a bloke in a bedroom. Now the positions are reversed.
The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.
Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election
Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
I am to be honest.
I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
Except that polling evidence suggests it was largely Corbyn not the policies that sunk Labour in December. They came within 2 points of the Tories two years earlier even with Corbyn at the helm.
You had better cross your fingers that Johnson actually delivers on his breezy optimistic vision of Brexit Britain or who knows what the voters will do next time.
Have you read Lord Ashcroft's polling report on labour's GE released this week
Yes. Which particular aspect do you feel Keir is not addressing?
Starmer is ignoring the message and pandering to the members to get elected
How else is he supposed to get elected?
Showing leadership rather than a bit of left wing leg...?
If he isn't capable of speaking difficult truths to the membership, he isn't a leader.
He also isn’t a leader if he doesn’t get elected. This is politics. Boris Johnson spouted almost constant drivel in order to get elected. He told everyone what they wanted to hear. Keir Starmer is doing the same.
Johnson didn't spout drivel. He said what he was going to do, sought to do it and is now doing it.
Yeah yeah.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
We don't pay for advertising.
Don't we pay with our time?
Not really. Does the few seconds of pressing fast forward to skip the ads bother you that much? Or you can do something else if watching it live.
The few seconds of our days we spend scrolling through, clicking off or simply trying not to engage have allowed google to become a trillion dollar company. Our aggregate time has become a commodity.
The audience figures will be tiny. Their YouTube also gets bugger all views.
Again it strikes me like the BBC feel the need to produce a tech show, public service remit and all that, but what you get is a very stale product in a market that is now dominated by YouTube channels that are massive and increasingly high quality.
Another example, Marques Brownlee (MKBHD) has three 4k videos out in the last 24 hours about the new Samsung phones, about 25 minutes of footage between them, and over 6 million viewers.
If you put a gun to their head and asked people under 30 to choose between the BBC and YouTube I expect 75% or more would pick the latter.
and a lot of over 30s as well even without a gun.
but I would love that to be a question in the next yougov or similer, if you had to give live without one for a year would it be Youtube or the BBC
This is exactly the moment that Starmer should be telling the Labour membership that winning from the extreme left isn't going to be possible and campaigning to win the leadership from the centre. Instead he's completely capitulated to the left and now he's going to have to flip flop or fail at the GE.
He's a complete idiot.
He still needs to get elected - I also think he is more left wing than we are giving him credit for...
Incidentally, how on earth do ITV and channels 4 and 5 make money these days? If I watch telly it is very rarely live (sometimes it us nearlt live but I have paused it to complete some minor domestic task). Thus, I only see adverts at 8x speed. This can't be atypical.
This is exactly the moment that Starmer should be telling the Labour membership that winning from the extreme left isn't going to be possible and campaigning to win the leadership from the centre. Instead he's completely capitulated to the left and now he's going to have to flip flop or fail at the GE.
He's a complete idiot.
He still needs to get elected - I also think he is more left wing than we are giving him credit for...
I mean he is in the Labour party.
I think a lot of us think he is a centralist candidate - and he isn't in any other election he would probably be the left wing option..
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
We don't pay for advertising.
Don't we pay with our time?
Yes, but mainly we pay with our money. That's so self-evident that it's bizarre that anyone would assert the opposite.
Do we all at least agree that despite Neil and Kuennsberg, in the long-term, a larger role for billionaire-owned media is better for the Conservatives.
I agree with your implication that the BBC is better for the Labour party. Very refreshing of you to admit it.
Incidentally, how on earth do ITV and channels 4 and 5 make money these days? If I watch telly it is very rarely live (sometimes it us nearlt live but I have paused it to complete some minor domestic task). Thus, I only see adverts at 8x speed. This can't be atypical.
The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.
Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election
Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
I am to be honest.
I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
Except that polling evidence suggests it was largely Corbyn not the policies that sunk Labour in December. They came within 2 points of the Tories two years earlier even with Corbyn at the helm.
You had better cross your fingers that Johnson actually delivers on his breezy optimistic vision of Brexit Britain or who knows what the voters will do next time.
Have you read Lord Ashcroft's polling report on labour's GE released this week
Yes. Which particular aspect do you feel Keir is not addressing?
Starmer is ignoring the message and pandering to the members to get elected
Very off topic but if you read one article on the current politics and sociology of China this is very strong. Its from a recently ostracised high status academic who is living within the country.
I see Joe Biden's first South Carolina rally after his New Hampshire loss was filled with supporters carrying posters saying 'South Carolina is Biden country' many of them African Americans.
George W Bush did the same in 2000 with 'South Carolina is Bush country' posters after he lost New Hampshire to McCain
The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.
Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election
Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
I am to be honest.
I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
Except that polling evidence suggests it was largely Corbyn not the policies that sunk Labour in December. They came within 2 points of the Tories two years earlier even with Corbyn at the helm.
You had better cross your fingers that Johnson actually delivers on his breezy optimistic vision of Brexit Britain or who knows what the voters will do next time.
Have you read Lord Ashcroft's polling report on labour's GE released this week
Yes. Which particular aspect do you feel Keir is not addressing?
Starmer is ignoring the message and pandering to the members to get elected
How else is he supposed to get elected?
Showing leadership rather than a bit of left wing leg...?
If he isn't capable of speaking difficult truths to the membership, he isn't a leader.
He also isn’t a leader if he doesn’t get elected. This is politics. Boris Johnson spouted almost constant drivel in order to get elected. He told everyone what they wanted to hear. Keir Starmer is doing the same.
Johnson didn't spout drivel. He said what he was going to do, sought to do it and is now doing it.
A fact which seems to pass everybody by. Rightly or wrongly, the options were well discussed, the various politicians took a stance, the public voted accordingly, and Boris won. Whatever happens, we can't say we weren't warned.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
We don't pay for advertising.
Don't we pay with our time?
Yes, but mainly we pay with our money. That's so self-evident that it's bizarre that anyone would assert the opposite.
YouTube is part of a circa trillion-dollar media giant that would like to destroy and replace the BBC if it had the option. You can't compare the BBC's position regarding YouTube to entertainment content-creating supplicants like teenage YouTubers.
Yes you can, when all the kids are coming home every day and not turning on the tv to watch traditional tv, rather putting YouTube on. Most of the major US TV channels have woken up to this, the BBC haven't. You need to use YouTube to get people to interested in your content.
Indeed. The only British film critic with any real international pull is Mark Kermode, and that's just because he gets a YouTube weekly. A lot of infotainment can be done with one person facing the camera talking, and you don't need a lot of production money nor staff to do that. Combine that with fair use, clips and a Patron page, and you can compete with the big boys. Ten years ago Richard Roeper was a well-paid critic and Chris Stuckmann was a bloke in a bedroom. Now the positions are reversed.
One amusing anecdote I read the other day is that when Friends was launched, Phoebe Buffay was written to be a twin. The reason they did that had nothing to do with the Friends storyline and was just because of the actress cast. Lisa Kudrow played Ursula on Mad About You and once she was cast as Phoebe for Friends (which had no other relationship to Mad About You) the network was worried that it would be too jarring for the audience to see the same actress in two separate prime time shows one after the other.
So they wrote Phoebe to be Ursula's twin. That way if people watched the two shows back to back, it wasn't odd for the same actress to be in both because they were twins. Of course ultimately Lisa Kudrow became a lot more famous for Friends, but when Friends launched they wouldn't have realised that at the time.
I don't think a show would do that nowadays. Back then everyone sitting and watching shows back to back was normal. Now we pick what we want and watch it when we want to do so on series link and don't associate so much with what was before or after any particular show.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I see Joe Biden's first South Carolina rally after his New Hampshire loss was filled with supporters carrying posters saying 'South Carolina is Biden country' many of them African Americans.
George W Bush did the same in 2000 with 'South Carolina is Bush country' posters after he lost New Hampshire to McCain
Incidentally, how on earth do ITV and channels 4 and 5 make money these days? If I watch telly it is very rarely live (sometimes it us nearlt live but I have paused it to complete some minor domestic task). Thus, I only see adverts at 8x speed. This can't be atypical.
ITV has a pretty big TV production arm which licences programming globally. Media production and licencing is where the money is.
Line of Duty, for example is produced by ITV studios and then licenced to the BBC for a huge markup, more than they would get from showing it on ITV 1 and selling the advertising.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
B only works if you are prepared to chase all those who prefer a, to go thought the courts, get criminal convictions and possibly end up in prison,
A will, in reality include lots of add free, or limited adds subscription service like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
Subscription services are a genuine challenge to a lot of what the BBC does, and it will need to change significantly in response to that.
However, the preceding discussion wasn't about that. It was about an ideological opposition to the BBC and the public funding model, despite the obvious success of both, and the fact that the advertising (not subscription) model being proposed doesn't offer any benefits in terms of consumer choice.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I would argue he hasn't done so, as does he. You disagree but we could go around in circles on that one.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
B only works if you are prepared to chase all those who prefer a, to go thought the courts, get criminal convictions and possibly end up in prison,
A will, in reality include lots of add free, or limited adds subscription service like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
Subscription services are a genuine challenge to a lot of what the BBC does, and it will need to change significantly in response to that.
However, the preceding discussion wasn't about that. It was about an ideological opposition to the BBC and the public funding model, despite the obvious success of both, and the fact that the advertising (not subscription) model being proposed doesn't offer any benefits in terms of consumer choice.
Actually I don't think many people proposed an advertising model.
I know I proposed letting the BBC do whatever the heck it wants whether it be ads, voluntary subscriptions or charity. So long as its voluntary though was my point.
The audience figures will be tiny. Their YouTube also gets bugger all views.
Again it strikes me like the BBC feel the need to produce a tech show, public service remit and all that, but what you get is a very stale product in a market that is now dominated by YouTube channels that are massive and increasingly high quality.
Another example, Marques Brownlee (MKBHD) has three 4k videos out in the last 24 hours about the new Samsung phones, about 25 minutes of footage between them, and over 6 million viewers.
If you put a gun to their head and asked people under 30 to choose between the BBC and YouTube I expect 75% or more would pick the latter.
and a lot of over 30s as well even without a gun.
but I would love that to be a question in the next yougov or similer, if you had to give live without one for a year would it be Youtube or the BBC
When my oldest daughter was born 10 years ago we were all over CBeebies. It was largely twee, preachy and pretty terrible (for every Hey Duggee there are 10 Me Toos) but it was there all the time. But by the time my youngest was born five years ago there was a lot more choice, and the mire they are able to exercise that choice, the less children opt for BBC. Oldest two (nearly ten, and eight) almist always watch Youtube; youngest (five) almost always goes for Netflix. I don't think Iplayer has had a look in at all for over six months.
The BBC is far too ready to confuse excellence with a lack of alternative.
Incidentally, how on earth do ITV and channels 4 and 5 make money these days? If I watch telly it is very rarely live (sometimes it us nearlt live but I have paused it to complete some minor domestic task). Thus, I only see adverts at 8x speed. This can't be atypical.
I don't know. I don't switch the telly on at all these days. I've still got one but when I throw it out I genuinely dont know if I'll bother to replace it. My siblings watch it, but I think these days it's just wallpaper to occupy their time whilst they get drunk. Some stuff - strictly, call the midwife - gets watched but other than that I don't know.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
We don't pay for advertising.
Don't we pay with our time?
Yes, but mainly we pay with our money. That's so self-evident that it's bizarre that anyone would assert the opposite.
How do you pay Alphabet when you watch Youtube?
We all pay through the advertising overhead on goods we buy. Therefore, there is no consumer choice short of opting out of being a consumer of (advertised) goods altogether.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
We’re not talking about the election. We’re talking about the leadership campaign.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
We don't pay for advertising.
Don't we pay with our time?
Yes, but mainly we pay with our money. That's so self-evident that it's bizarre that anyone would assert the opposite.
How do you pay Alphabet when you watch Youtube?
We all pay through the advertising overhead on goods we buy. Therefore, there is no consumer choice short of opting out of being consumer of (advertised) goods altogether.
There are no advertising overheads on goods we buy.
And ties will be broken by drawing cards rather than flipping a coin.
...Each precinct location will be given an unopened deck of cards by the Nevada Democratic Party. That deck then has to be shuffled at least seven times by the precinct chair or site lead. And then each candidate’s group will draw a card. The high card wins the delegate. (Aces are high. The suit order is spades highest, then hearts, diamonds, and clubs. Jokers and extra cards should be removed....
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I would argue he hasn't done so, as does he. You disagree but we could go around in circles on that one.
At least Ed waited until the eve of the General Election to hang a ridiculous albatross of stone pledges round his neck. Starmer's getting it out of the way first thing!
The vote-rigging expansion of the franchise is now an explicit pledge as well. We see you, Labour.
Good news for Nandy, when Starmer only lasts a couple of years before it's clear he doesn't cut it with the voters.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I would argue he hasn't done so, as does he. You disagree but we could go around in circles on that one.
Anything else? Or is that it?
You’re like a parody.
Do you want to answer the question?
Starmer has come up with 10 cards worth of bizarre pledges that we're supposed to ignore as meaningless leadership drivel. As apparently Johnson was just the same. So presumably you can find at least 10 points of "drivel" Johnson came up with during his campaign.
You claim Irish Sea, I'm not going to argue with that as its futile, anything else or is that it?
At least Ed waited until the eve of the General Election to hang a ridiculous albatross of stone pledges round his neck. Starmer's getting it out of the way first thing!
The vote-rigging expansion of the franchise is now an explicit pledge as well. We see you, Labour.
Good news for Nandy, when Starmer only lasts a couple of years before it's clear he doesn't cut it with the voters.
No, Starmer will make it to the GE because woke people will make it hard to publicly dissent against voting Labour, so all of the polls will move towards Labour. However, as happened in 2015, in the privacy of the polling booth, people will be free to make their voices heard. The lefty media will have another bout of "why don't people admit to voting Tory, I mean it's not like we're going to abuse you and try and get you fired at all".
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
We’re not talking about the election. We’re talking about the leadership campaign.
Tbh, I really don't think anyone in the party cared about it. We wanted to "get brexit done" and win the election. I voted for Hunt, but in retrospect Boris was probably the better choice for both of those things.
YouTube is part of a circa trillion-dollar media giant that would like to destroy and replace the BBC if it had the option. You can't compare the BBC's position regarding YouTube to entertainment content-creating supplicants like teenage YouTubers.
Yes you can, when all the kids are coming home every day and not turning on the tv to watch traditional tv, rather putting YouTube on. Most of the major US TV channels have woken up to this, the BBC haven't. You need to use YouTube to get people to interested in your content.
Indeed. The only British film critic with any real international pull is Mark Kermode, and that's just because he gets a YouTube weekly. A lot of infotainment can be done with one person facing the camera talking, and you don't need a lot of production money nor staff to do that. Combine that with fair use, clips and a Patron page, and you can compete with the big boys. Ten years ago Richard Roeper was a well-paid critic and Chris Stuckmann was a bloke in a bedroom. Now the positions are reversed.
One amusing anecdote I read the other day is that when Friends was launched, Phoebe Buffay was written to be a twin. The reason they did that had nothing to do with the Friends storyline and was just because of the actress cast. Lisa Kudrow played Ursula on Mad About You and once she was cast as Phoebe for Friends (which had no other relationship to Mad About You) the network was worried that it would be too jarring for the audience to see the same actress in two separate prime time shows one after the other.
So they wrote Phoebe to be Ursula's twin. That way if people watched the two shows back to back, it wasn't odd for the same actress to be in both because they were twins. Of course ultimately Lisa Kudrow became a lot more famous for Friends, but when Friends launched they wouldn't have realised that at the time.
I don't think a show would do that nowadays. Back then everyone sitting and watching shows back to back was normal. Now we pick what we want and watch it when we want to do so on series link and don't associate so much with what was before or after any particular show.
I'm sure that you've already seen @MaxPB but the Chinese GP has been officially postponed - and comments already about struggling to put it somewhere else.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I would argue he hasn't done so, as does he. You disagree but we could go around in circles on that one.
Anything else? Or is that it?
"Any kind of division" sounds pretty broad, I'd be curious to hear why a "customs border" doesn't meet that definition.
Plenty of ministers have had to waffle, and talk around this subject, and tend to avoid using the same language as the PM.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
B only works if you are prepared to chase all those who prefer a, to go thought the courts, get criminal convictions and possibly end up in prison,
A will, in reality include lots of add free, or limited adds subscription service like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
Subscription services are a genuine challenge to a lot of what the BBC does, and it will need to change significantly in response to that.
However, the preceding discussion wasn't about that. It was about an ideological opposition to the BBC and the public funding model, despite the obvious success of both, and the fact that the advertising (not subscription) model being proposed doesn't offer any benefits in terms of consumer choice.
I strongly disagree, I will never give a penny of my money to the BBC as is not just deceitful organisation but is prim objective seems to be to venerates all that I hate and criticize, marginalize and ridicule me and my deeply held belief system.
Therefor, as I don't want to go to prison, I can not, watch live TV, leaving me with no chose. when the BBC goes subscription then i can watch TV of my chose.
Fortunately the BBC is inefficient, and un-dynamic, alawwing cost effective upstarts, find ways around its evil monopoly
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
At least Ed waited until the eve of the General Election to hang a ridiculous albatross of stone pledges round his neck. Starmer's getting it out of the way first thing!
The vote-rigging expansion of the franchise is now an explicit pledge as well. We see you, Labour.
Good news for Nandy, when Starmer only lasts a couple of years before it's clear he doesn't cut it with the voters.
Oh dear, the desperation of right wing Tories to put down Starmer tells any Labour member everything they need to know. Tories are worried about Starmer. He will look very sensible when compared to The Clown. The Clown will have to be checking his back when he realises that Tory MPs are waking up to the fact that he is a bag of hot air.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I would argue he hasn't done so, as does he. You disagree but we could go around in circles on that one.
Anything else? Or is that it?
"Any kind of division" sounds pretty broad, I'd be curious to hear why a "customs border" doesn't meet that definition.
Plenty of ministers have had to waffle, and talk around this subject, and tend to avoid using the same language as the PM.
The customs border is at the UK border, international law and the agreement states that explicitly.
There are some devolved operational differences that only continue with the consent of the devolved Assembly but then that's already the case so moot. If NI isn't happy with the devolved difference they can vote to end them in the devolved assembly, the EU isn't compelling NI to have any differences they don't choose in their own Assembly.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
We don't pay for advertising.
Don't we pay with our time?
Yes, but mainly we pay with our money. That's so self-evident that it's bizarre that anyone would assert the opposite.
How do you pay Alphabet when you watch Youtube?
We all pay through the advertising overhead on goods we buy. Therefore, there is no consumer choice short of opting out of being a consumer of (advertised) goods altogether.
I can understand that whether you see it online or not the people orgasming in P&G's latest Shampoo need to be paid.
But there is an attention economy out there. When you watch a stream, use a free app, or scroll through a social network you are paying facebook et al with your time which they then sell on. You may never buy the product or service that is presented to you, but you still pay.
Your seconds are their commodity with micro auctions going on whenever you click on a website to see how much the advertisers will pay for the few seconds of your wasted time.
All the good domestic sport has been cut from the BBC, and people who like them do pay for them on sky
Except they don’t. I recall that F1 viewership in the UK has plummeted since it went to Sky. Only diehards will pay for Sky simply for the sport.
Same with test cricket. Same with boxing.
So why should we pay the BBC for it?
If people want to pay for live sport they can, but if they just want highlights etc that's available freely and legally on YouTube and plenty of other sites too. We don't need the BBC to package together some highlights program to be viewed after the day when it can be on YouTube within the hour.
We are paying for it one way or the other. The choice is:
(a) everyone paying for advertising that is mostly an irritant to the people who watch it; or
(b) people who have decided that a TV license is worth having paying for it, and it being ad-free for those who watch it.
B only works if you are prepared to chase all those who prefer a, to go thought the courts, get criminal convictions and possibly end up in prison,
A will, in reality include lots of add free, or limited adds subscription service like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
Subscription services are a genuine challenge to a lot of what the BBC does, and it will need to change significantly in response to that.
However, the preceding discussion wasn't about that. It was about an ideological opposition to the BBC and the public funding model, despite the obvious success of both, and the fact that the advertising (not subscription) model being proposed doesn't offer any benefits in terms of consumer choice.
I strongly disagree, I will never give a penny of my money to the BBC as is not just deceitful organisation but is prim objective seems to be to venerates all that I hate and criticize, marginalize and ridicule me and my deeply held belief system.
Therefor, as I don't want to go to prison, I can not, watch live TV, leaving me with no chose. when the BBC goes subscription then i can watch TV of my chose.
Fortunately the BBC is inefficient, and un-dynamic, alawwing cost effective upstarts, find ways around its evil monopoly
I wouldn't put it so strongly - but I do tend to get the impression from the BBC and its employees that they don't like me very much.
At least Ed waited until the eve of the General Election to hang a ridiculous albatross of stone pledges round his neck. Starmer's getting it out of the way first thing!
The vote-rigging expansion of the franchise is now an explicit pledge as well. We see you, Labour.
Good news for Nandy, when Starmer only lasts a couple of years before it's clear he doesn't cut it with the voters.
No, Starmer will make it to the GE because woke people will make it hard to publicly dissent against voting Labour, so all of the polls will move towards Labour. However, as happened in 2015, in the privacy of the polling booth, people will be free to make their voices heard. The lefty media will have another bout of "why don't people admit to voting Tory, I mean it's not like we're going to abuse you and try and get you fired at all".
It's already written.
I don't think Starmer would get a majority but he could get a hung parliament and enough seats to govern with the LDs (or maybe the LDs plus SNP) if hard Brexit goes badly on a pro single market ticket
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
We’re not talking about the election. We’re talking about the leadership campaign.
Tbh, I really don't think anyone in the party cared about it. We wanted to "get brexit done" and win the election. I voted for Hunt, but in retrospect Boris was probably the better choice for both of those things.
Bloody hell. Setting the country on a path to a dissolution of the Union is something no one in the party cared about?
At least Ed waited until the eve of the General Election to hang a ridiculous albatross of stone pledges round his neck. Starmer's getting it out of the way first thing!
The vote-rigging expansion of the franchise is now an explicit pledge as well. We see you, Labour.
Good news for Nandy, when Starmer only lasts a couple of years before it's clear he doesn't cut it with the voters.
No, Starmer will make it to the GE because woke people will make it hard to publicly dissent against voting Labour, so all of the polls will move towards Labour. However, as happened in 2015, in the privacy of the polling booth, people will be free to make their voices heard. The lefty media will have another bout of "why don't people admit to voting Tory, I mean it's not like we're going to abuse you and try and get you fired at all".
It's already written.
I don't think Starmer would get a majority but he could get a hung parliament and enough seats to govern with the LDs (or maybe the LDs plus SNP) if hard Brexit goes badly on a pro single market ticket
I think that is a very likely scenario, whether hard Brexit is good or bad.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
We’re not talking about the election. We’re talking about the leadership campaign.
Tbh, I really don't think anyone in the party cared about it. We wanted to "get brexit done" and win the election. I voted for Hunt, but in retrospect Boris was probably the better choice for both of those things.
Bloody hell. Setting the country on a path to a dissolution of the Union is something no one in the party cared about?
Boris has blocked indyref2 as per the Tory manifesto which got a majority
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
We’re not talking about the election. We’re talking about the leadership campaign.
Tbh, I really don't think anyone in the party cared about it. We wanted to "get brexit done" and win the election. I voted for Hunt, but in retrospect Boris was probably the better choice for both of those things.
Bloody hell. Setting the country on a path to a dissolution of the Union is something no one in the party cared about?
Well I for one don't, I'd welcome it, but I don't see how we've done that either.
Johnson's NI protocol continues to operate only if the devolved NI Assembly wishes it to continue. Unless you abhor all devolution and wish to have nothing devolved ever, I fail to see any issue with that.
Did I read that right, Starmer is proposing extending the franchise to EU nationals?
EU nationals that will be third party nationals at the time of the next election?
He’s gone mad.
EU nationals who are ordinary resident in the UK I imagine. We treat Irish nationals the same way.
I don’t know the details though.
Devil is in the detail. For historic reasons Ireland is a special case of course; but why, a few years after Brexit, should a Lithuanian national in the UK have a vote but a Cameroonian or Peruvian not?
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
We’re not talking about the election. We’re talking about the leadership campaign.
Tbh, I really don't think anyone in the party cared about it. We wanted to "get brexit done" and win the election. I voted for Hunt, but in retrospect Boris was probably the better choice for both of those things.
Bloody hell. Setting the country on a path to a dissolution of the Union is something no one in the party cared about?
The current party membership clearly do not care a jot. It is why they are Conservative In Name Only. The Conservative Party ceased to be when the swiveleyed took the ascendancy and the more gullible (did I mention HYUFD?) fell in behind them.
but I would love that to be a question in the next yougov or similer, if you had to give live without one for a year would it be Youtube or the BBC
No BBC would leave a hole in my life. Bereft would be hyperbole but I'd notice and miss it a lot. The year would drag and I'd be constantly looking at the calendar and urging it to get a move on.
No YouTube for a year? Shame, shrug, forget it. But nice to have it back when the time is up.
That's how I would answer such a question from YouGov. If there was sufficient space.
"If there was a case of a young white boy with blond hair who later dabbled in class A drugs and conspired with a friend to beat up a journalist, would he deport that boy, or is it one rule for young black boys from the Caribbean and another for white boys from the United States?"
Did I read that right, Starmer is proposing extending the franchise to EU nationals?
EU nationals that will be third party nationals at the time of the next election?
He’s gone mad.
EU nationals who are ordinary resident in the UK I imagine. We treat Irish nationals the same way.
I don’t know the details though.
Devil is in the detail. For historic reasons Ireland is a special case of course; but why, a few years after Brexit, should a Lithuanian national in the UK have a vote but a Cameroonian or Peruvian not?
I don’t have a problem with anyone who is living here long term to vote in elections, regardless of where they are from.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
At some point (perhaps quite soon) I expect Bloomberg to become favourite on Betfair.
On the basis that the only thing to do when you’re in a hole as big of mine is to keep digging I may keep some cash back to lay him some more when he goes to 2.8-3.0.
but I would love that to be a question in the next yougov or similer, if you had to give live without one for a year would it be Youtube or the BBC
No BBC would leave a hole in my life. Bereft would be hyperbole but I'd notice and miss it a lot. The year would drag and I'd be constantly looking at the calendar and urging it to get a move on.
No YouTube for a year? Shame, shrug, forget it. But nice to have it back when the time is up.
That's how I would answer such a question from YouGov. If there was sufficient space.
Look at the BBC from the opposite direction.
If it didn't exist, would we set it up now? What function would we want it to fulfil?
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I would argue he hasn't done so, as does he. You disagree but we could go around in circles on that one.
Anything else? Or is that it?
All will be revealed on January 1st 2021. If you need paperwork due to customs between Scotland and Ireland then yep - he's created a division...
Did I read that right, Starmer is proposing extending the franchise to EU nationals?
EU nationals that will be third party nationals at the time of the next election?
He’s gone mad.
Labour knows that the current electorate makes it very difficult for them to win, so they'd like to replace it with one that gives them a chance. It's a sick distortion of democracy.
The Tories need to hammer Labour on this very hard for the next 5 years.
Did I read that right, Starmer is proposing extending the franchise to EU nationals?
EU nationals that will be third party nationals at the time of the next election?
He’s gone mad.
EU nationals who are ordinary resident in the UK I imagine. We treat Irish nationals the same way.
I don’t know the details though.
Devil is in the detail. For historic reasons Ireland is a special case of course; but why, a few years after Brexit, should a Lithuanian national in the UK have a vote but a Cameroonian or Peruvian not?
I don’t have a problem with anyone who is living here long term to vote in elections, regardless of where they are from.
I fail to see the reason for giving the vote to any (additional) non U.K citizens.
Using the Lithuanian example, they are still entitled to vote in Lithuania. Why should they get a vote in multiple states?
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
I would argue he hasn't done so, as does he. You disagree but we could go around in circles on that one.
Anything else? Or is that it?
All will be revealed on January 1st 2021. If you need paperwork due to customs between Scotland and Ireland then yep - he's created a division...
Did I read that right, Starmer is proposing extending the franchise to EU nationals?
EU nationals that will be third party nationals at the time of the next election?
He’s gone mad.
EU nationals who are ordinary resident in the UK I imagine. We treat Irish nationals the same way.
I don’t know the details though.
Devil is in the detail. For historic reasons Ireland is a special case of course; but why, a few years after Brexit, should a Lithuanian national in the UK have a vote but a Cameroonian or Peruvian not?
I don’t have a problem with anyone who is living here long term to vote in elections, regardless of where they are from.
I fail to see the reason for giving the vote to any (additional) non U.K citizens.
Using the Lithuanian example, they are still entitled to vote in Lithuania. Why should they get a vote in multiple states?
If they live here, they are part of the community. Why shouldn’t they have a say?
Bear in mind I don’t actually really care about this, this is not an important issue.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
He’s got it in one.
They’d be worried it’d promote national identity, so they’re not interested.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
He’s got it in one.
They’d be worried it’d promote national identity, so they’re not interested.
You guys are obsessed with the EU. You need to get over it.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
No doubt had they done so, people with your political perspective would have gone into an eye swivelling apoplectic rage. Shame the EU didn't do it really.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
The Commonwealth has the Commonwealth Games.
Bit odd that the UK has never done anything similar. They could have the British Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Unionist agenda to have UK nations competing against each other and they'd rather haven a UK team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
If only things you'd call drivel are what you dislike him doing, just because you dislike it, that doesn't make it drivel. If you can come up with pledges Johnson made that he abandoned the second he was elected that would be drivel - do you have any?
"Under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea or attenuate our Union”
The deal was made before the election, the public voted for Boris knowing all of that.
We’re not talking about the election. We’re talking about the leadership campaign.
Tbh, I really don't think anyone in the party cared about it. We wanted to "get brexit done" and win the election. I voted for Hunt, but in retrospect Boris was probably the better choice for both of those things.
Bloody hell. Setting the country on a path to a dissolution of the Union is something no one in the party cared about?
Well I for one don't, I'd welcome it, but I don't see how we've done that either.
Johnson's NI protocol continues to operate only if the devolved NI Assembly wishes it to continue. Unless you abhor all devolution and wish to have nothing devolved ever, I fail to see any issue with that.
If it happens it happens (same as Scottish independence); I personally would go with "the people".
But that's not the issue: the putative defender of the Union, ie the leader of the Conservative *** U******* Party saying, as would be expected, and indeed as his predecessor did, that he would never agree to a measure which would give a filip to those who want Irish unification, and then giving a filip to those who want Irish unification, is nothing short of extraordinary.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
He’s got it in one.
They’d be worried it’d promote national identity, so they’re not interested.
You guys are obsessed with the EU. You need to get over it.
They can't. I was speaking with a leaver the other night and she was still so angry about the EU it was like they had lost the referendum. I had to remind her that though it was by small margin, they won! It is sadly just a hatred of the foreigner thing.
but I would love that to be a question in the next yougov or similer, if you had to give live without one for a year would it be Youtube or the BBC
No BBC would leave a hole in my life. Bereft would be hyperbole but I'd notice and miss it a lot. The year would drag and I'd be constantly looking at the calendar and urging it to get a move on.
No YouTube for a year? Shame, shrug, forget it. But nice to have it back when the time is up.
That's how I would answer such a question from YouGov. If there was sufficient space.
Look at the BBC from the opposite direction.
If it didn't exist, would we set it up now? What function would we want it to fulfil?
Mostly the public service remit: world news to 'Economist' standard, Parliament live, World Service, the stuff at the heart of Radio 4, rolling high quality news and comment, independently holding power to account. But without the luvvie and liberal bias, the faux populism of Radio 5 and the stuff that is either better not done at all, better done by subscription and better done by advertising.
The great majority of what would be worth keeping can be done much more cheaply on radio.
Comments
Biden got humiliated. And lost his one argument, electability.
The vote-rigging expansion of the franchise is now an explicit pledge as well. We see you, Labour.
If you put a gun to their head and asked people under 30 to choose between the BBC and YouTube I expect 75% or more would pick the latter.
A will, in reality include lots of add free, or limited adds subscription service like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
but I would love that to be a question in the next yougov or similer, if you had to give live without one for a year would it be Youtube or the BBC
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1227544318593900544?s=20
http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/viral-alarm-when-fury-overcomes-fear
So they wrote Phoebe to be Ursula's twin. That way if people watched the two shows back to back, it wasn't odd for the same actress to be in both because they were twins. Of course ultimately Lisa Kudrow became a lot more famous for Friends, but when Friends launched they wouldn't have realised that at the time.
I don't think a show would do that nowadays. Back then everyone sitting and watching shows back to back was normal. Now we pick what we want and watch it when we want to do so on series link and don't associate so much with what was before or after any particular show.
Line of Duty, for example is produced by ITV studios and then licenced to the BBC for a huge markup, more than they would get from showing it on ITV 1 and selling the advertising.
However, the preceding discussion wasn't about that. It was about an ideological opposition to the BBC and the public funding model, despite the obvious success of both, and the fact that the advertising (not subscription) model being proposed doesn't offer any benefits in terms of consumer choice.
Anything else? Or is that it?
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1227558935265234951?s=20
I know I proposed letting the BBC do whatever the heck it wants whether it be ads, voluntary subscriptions or charity. So long as its voluntary though was my point.
The BBC is far too ready to confuse excellence with a lack of alternative.
Starmer has come up with 10 cards worth of bizarre pledges that we're supposed to ignore as meaningless leadership drivel. As apparently Johnson was just the same. So presumably you can find at least 10 points of "drivel" Johnson came up with during his campaign.
You claim Irish Sea, I'm not going to argue with that as its futile, anything else or is that it?
It's already written.
Plenty of ministers have had to waffle, and talk around this subject, and tend to avoid using the same language as the PM.
Therefor, as I don't want to go to prison, I can not, watch live TV, leaving me with no chose. when the BBC goes subscription then i can watch TV of my chose.
Fortunately the BBC is inefficient, and un-dynamic, alawwing cost effective upstarts, find ways around its evil monopoly
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
There are some devolved operational differences that only continue with the consent of the devolved Assembly but then that's already the case so moot. If NI isn't happy with the devolved difference they can vote to end them in the devolved assembly, the EU isn't compelling NI to have any differences they don't choose in their own Assembly.
But there is an attention economy out there. When you watch a stream, use a free app, or scroll through a social network you are paying facebook et al with your time which they then sell on. You may never buy the product or service that is presented to you, but you still pay.
Your seconds are their commodity with micro auctions going on whenever you click on a website to see how much the advertisers will pay for the few seconds of your wasted time.
EU nationals that will be third party nationals at the time of the next election?
He’s gone mad.
I don’t know the details though.
Johnson's NI protocol continues to operate only if the devolved NI Assembly wishes it to continue. Unless you abhor all devolution and wish to have nothing devolved ever, I fail to see any issue with that.
No YouTube for a year? Shame, shrug, forget it. But nice to have it back when the time is up.
That's how I would answer such a question from YouGov. If there was sufficient space.
Bit odd that the EU has never done anything similar. They could have the European Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Eurocrats agenda to have EU countries nationals competing against each other and they'd rather haven a European team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
At some point (perhaps quite soon) I expect Bloomberg to become favourite on Betfair.
On the basis that the only thing to do when you’re in a hole as big of mine is to keep digging I may keep some cash back to lay him some more when he goes to 2.8-3.0.
If it didn't exist, would we set it up now? What function would we want it to fulfil?
The Tories need to hammer Labour on this very hard for the next 5 years.
Using the Lithuanian example, they are still entitled to vote in Lithuania. Why should they get a vote in multiple states?
Bear in mind I don’t actually really care about this, this is not an important issue.
They’d be worried it’d promote national identity, so they’re not interested.
Bit odd that the UK has never done anything similar. They could have the British Games every 4 years but don't.
Probably because it doesn't suit the Unionist agenda to have UK nations competing against each other and they'd rather haven a UK team competing against others but its the sort of thing a healthy self-confident organisation should really organise.
Look what we need to do to attract more voters - lock the scrotes up.
But that's not the issue: the putative defender of the Union, ie the leader of the Conservative *** U******* Party saying, as would be expected, and indeed as his predecessor did, that he would never agree to a measure which would give a filip to those who want Irish unification, and then giving a filip to those who want Irish unification, is nothing short of extraordinary.
The great majority of what would be worth keeping can be done much more cheaply on radio.