To me KS doesn't look like has enough hate in his heart for tories. Angela Rodham Rayner would have been better.
Those who hate them that much, or are more open about displaying it, will vote the best way to defeat the Tories regardless of Leader. Keir doesnt need to work on them, just not off put them whilst he works at people he doesnt need to shame for voting Tory, just make them realise they made a mistake.
Trying to “make them realise they made a mistake” is not going to be a good idea. In one sense I think it is a category error: electorates don’t make mistakes because the question they are asked is who do you want, not who would be best. Even if you think it was a mistake (and don’t forget the alternative was Jeremy) you are not going to get very far telling electors they were wrong. You need to work out what their reasons were for voting the way they did and persuade them that those reasons no longer apply so they can now do something different.
By making them realise they made a mistake I did not mean telling them they made a mistake. As you say, that is telling them they were wrong, and people don't like that. By making himself more appealing and persuasive, sufficient numbers may come to that conclusion on their own than if someone hectors them about what an error it was.
Yes, though I still think an acknowledgement that you understand the reasons for the previous vote and have now done something about it would help.
That would indeed be one way to convince people that continuing their previous rejection of you would be a mistake.
We seem to be violently agreeing with each other...
I love agreeing with people. Some people tell me that makes me a Yes man, and I tell them, absolutely, whatever you say, boss.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Interesting complaint in today's Guardian. Pubs which are primarily drinking places....... in other words, the sort which are, traditionally, 'at the heart off communities' are complaining that the VAT reductions, because they only apply to food and not to drink, discriminate in favour of the Wetherspoons of this world and against ye olde village hostelry. Personally when I go my local pub; I go for a pint and a natter, and go somewhere else ...... home......for a meal.
The admin burden of working out how to deal with govt 2 for 1 vouchers (for just 13 low volume days) will also be miniscule for the big chains but be very significant for your independents. Some may not bother with it.
I doubt it would take as much as 1 hour for each voucher. If not then it’s worth claiming - don’t forget its a 100% margin contribution
I am shielding at the moment but I did have to go to a hospital yesterday for treatment and so wore a mask. Does anyone know how to stop glasses steaming up?
@Foxy suggested micropore tape, and he wears masks for a living. What works for me is pre-bending the mask before putting it on so it fits better over the nose. Google will no doubt supply other techniques, if you ask it nicely. Tbh I'm not entirely sure this whole pandemic was not genetically engineered as a marketing tool by evil laser eye surgeons.
Thinking about it, my inept pre-bending might mean the mask fits better over cheeks and worse over the nose, so hot breath vents between the lenses not over them. But it works for me, or it did before I tried to explain how.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
If pensioners didn't already have the triple lock, high rates of home ownership (and from when houses were ridiculously cheap) and were on average not poor, hadn't voted to shaft the young with Brexit, they might have some sympathy from me.
But they didn't, so they don't. People between 18 and 40 are the ones getting shafted.
It's not even wow, it is much worse than that and makes you despair at the state of the US
A complete disregard for the instruments of law. This doesn't bode well for November onwards if the result is not the one Trump is expecting.
It’s effectively a bribe to keep his mouth shut. Commutation rather than pardon, so that Stone retains his Fifth Amendment rights not to testify, which he’d lose if pardoned.
I demand justice! An Iron Age skeleton with his hands bound has been discovered by HS2 project archaeologists, who believe he may be a murder victim...
Dr Wood said: "The death of the Wellwick Farm man remains a mystery to us, but there aren't many ways you end up in a bottom of a ditch, face down, with your hands bound.
More likely to be a temporary survivor of a battle. Debate whether that is “murder” or not - I’d suggest not because it’s more helpful to have a separate word
I am not sure that I agree with the easy mode part of David's piece either. The government is trying to cope with a pandemic of the likes not really seen since 1918 (Hong Kong flu killed more but caused far, far less disruption). They are trying to cope with the economic chaos that this has caused not just in the UK but right across the world. And they have to deal with a media still obsessed with Brexit which is utterly trivial compared with the first 2 issues but pressing in terms of time.
In addition to all that it appears that Boris, Gove and Cummings have high ambitions for reshaping the way that government is done and improving its efficiency using modern quantative techniques in ways that seem optimistic given the quality of the data available. It's probably the heaviest workload that any government has had since early Thatcher.
Inevitably, mistakes are being made left, right and centre. Things are going too fast, the will is there but the levers either don't exist or are not adequately connected to anything. Lots of clever ideas are announced but struggle to get purchase in the real world. The frustration is evident and growing. Hancock in particular looks near the edge of totally losing it.
This isn't easy street, this is hard, possibly too hard for the talent available. It just doesn't have a lot to do with Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
To me KS doesn't look like has enough hate in his heart for tories. Angela Rodham Rayner would have been better.
Corbyn had a lot of hate for Tories in him, fat lot of good it did him winning over Tory voters.
In any case who wins the next general election is largely out of Starmer's hands in my view. It depends entirely on the outcome of Brexit. If the transition period ends with no trade deal and WTO terms Brexit then Starmer has a good chance of becoming PM as he offers an acceptable alternative for Tory Remainers and soft Brexiteers who will then switch to Labour and the LDs.
If however Boris gets a trade deal with the EU that protects the economy and ends free movement the Tories will likely be re elected whatever Starmer does.
If the transition period is extended beyond the next general election then Leavers will return to the Brexit Party from the Tories and Starmer could get in on a split vote on the right
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Osborne was cunning there. He handed over administering the charge to the BBC, so it's the BBC which are getting the blame. Like a lot of other unpleasant things Cameron and Osborne did, their devious minds ensured that the blame was shifted on to other people. As the LibDems found out to their cost.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
It's not even wow, it is much worse than that and makes you despair at the state of the US
The US constitution's presidential powers will need a good looking at if the Republic survives Trump.
The founding fathers did try.
It is just they never expected high office to be occupied by someone so malevolent as Trump. Even Richard Nixon knew where the line in the sand was drawn.
Yes they did, they explicitly set up the constitutional that despots could be removed from power. What they didn't expect was an entire party apparatus supporting him.
Because they were idiots. They thought they could prevent political parties from coming into existence.
In fairness it took quite a while for party coherency and machinery to develop to the position we now have.
I demand justice! An Iron Age skeleton with his hands bound has been discovered by HS2 project archaeologists, who believe he may be a murder victim...
Dr Wood said: "The death of the Wellwick Farm man remains a mystery to us, but there aren't many ways you end up in a bottom of a ditch, face down, with your hands bound.
More likely to be a temporary survivor of a battle. Debate whether that is “murder” or not - I’d suggest not because it’s more helpful to have a separate word
You seem to know a lot about it. Where were you or your ancestor 2000 years ago? Buckinghamshire perhaps?
I am shielding at the moment but I did have to go to a hospital yesterday for treatment and so wore a mask. Does anyone know how to stop glasses steaming up?
@Foxy suggested micropore tape, and he wears masks for a living. What works for me is pre-bending the mask before putting it on so it fits better over the nose. Google will no doubt supply other techniques, if you ask it nicely. Tbh I'm not entirely sure this whole pandemic was not genetically engineered as a marketing tool by evil laser eye surgeons.
Thinking about it, my inept pre-bending might mean the mask fits better over cheeks and worse over the nose, so hot breath vents between the lenses not over them. But it works for me, or it did before I tried to explain how.
I was at the hairdressers yesterday and found the mask slipping off my nose when leaning back for the basin, and also during the cut. But I think the problem is actually my lockdown beard. My chin now obviously has much more friction, so during the little stresses and strains of everyday movement it tends to stick firmly round my chin and slip down over my nose. I have tried wearing a buff round my face when out and about, but it means two or more layers of material and gets horribly soggy very quickly.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
Can that really explain the huge increase in the number of votes and voteshare from 2015 though? I am not sure it can, alone.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
Can that really explain the huge increase in the number of votes and voteshare from 2015 though? I am not sure it can, alone.
One in ten voters thinking that gets Labour from 30% to 40%.
I demand justice! An Iron Age skeleton with his hands bound has been discovered by HS2 project archaeologists, who believe he may be a murder victim...
Dr Wood said: "The death of the Wellwick Farm man remains a mystery to us, but there aren't many ways you end up in a bottom of a ditch, face down, with your hands bound.
More likely to be a temporary survivor of a battle. Debate whether that is “murder” or not - I’d suggest not because it’s more helpful to have a separate word
Did they find the rope? If not, all we have is someone buried in an unceremonious position. Archeologists like dramas, they get publicity.
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
If it’s a question of using used pants, I think I will stick to my current arraignments thank you...
I demand justice! An Iron Age skeleton with his hands bound has been discovered by HS2 project archaeologists, who believe he may be a murder victim...
Dr Wood said: "The death of the Wellwick Farm man remains a mystery to us, but there aren't many ways you end up in a bottom of a ditch, face down, with your hands bound.
To me KS doesn't look like has enough hate in his heart for tories. Angela Rodham Rayner would have been better.
Corbyn had a lot of hate for Tories in him, fat lot of good it did him winning over Tory voters.
In any case who wins the next general election is largely out of Starmer's hands in my view. It depends entirely on the outcome of Brexit. If the transition period ends with no trade deal and WTO terms Brexit then Starmer has a good chance of becoming PM as he offers an acceptable alternative for Tory Remainers and soft Brexiteers who will then switch to Labour and the LDs.
If however Boris gets a trade deal with the EU that protects the economy and ends free movement the Tories will likely be re elected whatever Starmer does.
If the transition period is extended beyond the next general election then Leavers will return to the Brexit Party from the Tories and Starmer could get in on a split vote on the right
“Entirely” ? Still obsessed with Brexit, I see.
Probably right though. The form actual Brexit takes is going to have a huge effect on how much prosperity there is, which defines everything else. Trouble is that, although smarter Conservatives have realised that a WTO / worse than Australia arrangement will be political suicide, they are yet to accept that a Canada type arrangement will introduce more red tape than the volume and speed of UK-EU trade can cope with, so will be pretty terrible as well.
Genuinely, where do people think we will end up re Brexit?
I think it's possible we end up in some kind of EEA by another name arrangement.
We will end up with a free trade deal with zero tariffs and a fairly level playing field. Remainers will call this a humiliating bending of the knee, Boris and some leavers will call it a triumph and the vast majority of us will continue like nothing has happened. To call this a second order problem in light of what we are facing right now is to vastly overstate it. Flotsam and jetsam on the flood is more like it.
If pensioners didn't already have the triple lock, high rates of home ownership (and from when houses were ridiculously cheap) and were on average not poor, hadn't voted to shaft the young with Brexit, they might have some sympathy from me.
But they didn't, so they don't. People between 18 and 40 are the ones getting shafted.
My over-75 mates seem to spend a lot of time in the pub (and not just Wetherspoons) so I dare say they can afford it. About 35 pints at Hampshire prices. Obviously the money would be better spent on beer. Their free bus passes are mostly used to subsidise their beer drinking habits as well.
But one good thing to come out of Covid is I have learnt how to have a virtual pub session on Skype with friends and mail-order beer, so when I am too decrepit to go out I won't be dependent on the television anyway. At the beginning of lockdown I was thinking of getting a fancier telly and a TV package rather than relying on Freeview, but I find I have hardly watched it.
So Jeremy Hunt is in favour of compulsory face masks in shops.
Thus proving that Hunt is not the sort of 'talent' we need in government.
You missed some horrible posts last night where anyone who dare debate this latest wheeze from Boris was dismissed as “stupid” and “irresponsible”. The data is clear, yet too many PBers prefer to moralise rather have a grown up discussion about it. Sad.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
If it’s a question of using used pants, I think I will stick to my current arraignments thank you...
Someone else's used pants if you're into that sort of thing...
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
That doesn't totally explain it TBH apart from some corbynsceptic remain voters who maybe voted Lab in 2017 and LD in 2019.
I think there is a lot in what correcthorsebattery says. I don't think a lot of leave voters were voting *FOR* Corbyn in 2017 but I'm not convinced it was just an anti May vote either.
I'm most interested in leave voters who voted Labour in 2017 (especially new votes for Lab) but stayed at home in 2019.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
In the current economic climate I’m not sure if there is enough advertising money around to finance the BBC as well as the others.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
That doesn't totally explain it TBH apart from some corbynsceptic remain voters who maybe voted Lab in 2017 and LD in 2019.
I think there is a lot in what correcthorsebattery says. I don't think a lot of leave voters were voting *FOR* Corbyn in 2017 but I'm not convinced it was just an anti May vote either.
I'm most interested in leave voters who voted Labour in 2017 (especially new votes for Lab) but stayed at home in 2019.
Are you suggesting that the two sentence summation of two general elections made by someone whose expertise is teaching Physics might not be the whole story?
On topic, I think I agree with most of David H's points. But I'd also echo what others said - because of Brexit, and because the Conservatives did not have a working majority between 2010 and 2019, this feels as much like a first term government as a fourth term government.
Also, it is run by Boris and Dominic Cummings, and they are much better at electioneering than the everyday grind of governing. So it's government by focus group - in effect a permanent election campaign. This makes it difficult for the opposition to attack, but it isn't exactly conducive to tackling the country's many problems, as Mrs Thatcher certainly did.
Finally, Starmer is no Tony Blair. As others have said, he gets some credit for not being Corbyn, particularly amongst the saner metro elites, but he has nothing to say to the former red wall, let alone Scotland. And since Labour already has most of the seats in our big cities, that's a colossal problem for the party.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
In the current economic climate I’m not sure if there is enough advertising money around to finance the BBC as well as the others.
Long term plan. The current Royal Charter for the BBC doesn't expire until 31 December 2027.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
One key observation here is that Boris is not a Conservative in the way most of his backbenchers understand it, and Dominic Cummings does not even claim to be, so if Boris's health does force his retirement mid-term, then the government and its platform in 2024 might be completely different.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
That doesn't totally explain it TBH apart from some corbynsceptic remain voters who maybe voted Lab in 2017 and LD in 2019.
I think there is a lot in what correcthorsebattery says. I don't think a lot of leave voters were voting *FOR* Corbyn in 2017 but I'm not convinced it was just an anti May vote either.
I'm most interested in leave voters who voted Labour in 2017 (especially new votes for Lab) but stayed at home in 2019.
Are you suggesting that the two sentence summation of two general elections made by someone whose expertise is teaching Physics might not be the whole story?
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
One key observation here is that Boris is not a Conservative in the way most of his backbenchers understand it, and Dominic Cummings does not even claim to be, so if Boris's health does force his retirement mid-term, then the government and its platform in 2024 might be completely different.
In the event of Johnson stepping down as leader, I think Cummings would appoint Gove as his successor.
Government sources say Mr Johnson told Whitehall chiefs this week to set an example by starting to return civil servants to their desks. On a conference call with 200 senior civil servants, he said it was ‘more efficient and productive’ than working from home.
I assume this was done on here last night. I predict a shitstorm of epic proportions if this is true.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
One key observation here is that Boris is not a Conservative in the way most of his backbenchers understand it, and Dominic Cummings does not even claim to be, so if Boris's health does force his retirement mid-term, then the government and its platform in 2024 might be completely different.
Far from the Tories being stuck in their ways and never changing anything, as some of their opponents suggest, they seem very willing to radically alter their prospectus if they need to. Every party does alter of course, but for some reason some think the Tories do not, and that hinders them.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
In the current economic climate I’m not sure if there is enough advertising money around to finance the BBC as well as the others.
Long term plan. The current Royal Charter for the BBC doesn't expire until 31 December 2027.
By which time so few people will be still watching broadcast TV that I expect a subscription model may be the only logical way forward.
The technical challenge is pretty much non-existent as iPlayer already requires a login.
Government sources say Mr Johnson told Whitehall chiefs this week to set an example by starting to return civil servants to their desks. On a conference call with 200 senior civil servants, he said it was ‘more efficient and productive’ than working from home.
I assume this was done on here last night. I predict a shitstorm of epic proportions if this is true.
Bummer I'm quite enjoying working from home. Although we're recruiting so many people that there;s not really room for me in the office, especially with social distancing measures in place.
Far from the Tories being stuck in their ways and never changing anything, as some of their opponents suggest, they seem very willing to radically alter their prospectus if they need to. Every party does alter of course, but for some reason some think the Tories do not, and that hinders them.
No
BoZo is willing to abandon any principle for power, but he is neither Conservative, nor Unionist.
Added extra bit. Although he has an 80 seat majority, BoZo has already lost votes in the Commons where he failed to bend the party to his will. His revolution may yet be stymied by "Tories"
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
In the current economic climate I’m not sure if there is enough advertising money around to finance the BBC as well as the others.
Long term plan. The current Royal Charter for the BBC doesn't expire until 31 December 2027.
I don't see what's wrong with letting the BBC Trust decide but truly separate from government. Tell the BBC the current licence fee charter that expires in 2027 won't be renewed and they have seven years to decide what they want to do ... Go with advertising like ITV, subscription like Netflix, fundraising like PBS in America or some combination.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Yes, they could argue it would be fairer to pay for it by charging an additional percentage on Sky/Netflix subscriptions and TV purchases, maybe digital advertising, or something.
1. Just booked a supermarket delivery slot for 2 weeks tomorrow. Didn't even have to be online at midnight to get a slot.
2. I'm heading out on an adventure to fill the car with petrol. First time in 4 months. Asda pay at pump is the safest (and cheapest) option. Face covering, disposable gloves and antibac wipes all lined up. Wish me luck!
Tory complacency and hubris are visible from space - and both are leading to major errors that are having real world consequences. These will continue to pile up. The onus is definitely on Labour to come up with an alternative vision for the country and to sell it. Lockdown has severely constrained this - I wonder how many times the shadow cabinet has actually met in the same room since it was created, for example - while there are also major internal issues for Starmer to sort out.
I am not sure the contrast is with Cameron and Osborne in 2010, when they had been in opposition for a number of years, but with 2006 when they had just started and Labour had just won its third majority. It took time to build the relentless focus, to reinvent the Tories and to build credibility in the country. It also took a major economic shock and Labour infighting.
The Tories have already helped Labour get back into the game earlier than I expected. Outside of the predictable far-left malcontents the party is feeling happier and more united than it has for a long while. The long journey has begun. It has a few years to run. But the one thing Labour has is time.
What is also necessary is a LibDem revival of sorts. That is out of Labour's control, but - you never know - Johnson/Cummings might help there, too.
Far from the Tories being stuck in their ways and never changing anything, as some of their opponents suggest, they seem very willing to radically alter their prospectus if they need to. Every party does alter of course, but for some reason some think the Tories do not, and that hinders them.
No
BoZo is willing to abandon any principle for power, but he is neither Conservative, nor Unionist.
Added extra bit. Although he has an 80 seat majority, BoZo has already lost votes in the Commons where he failed to bend the party to his will. His revolution may yet be stymied by "Tories"
It tells you something when labour is ten points behind this government of spineless cowards and closet socialists.
If there's a gap opening up its on the right, not the left. It would be much easier to critique the government from there.
Far from the Tories being stuck in their ways and never changing anything, as some of their opponents suggest, they seem very willing to radically alter their prospectus if they need to. Every party does alter of course, but for some reason some think the Tories do not, and that hinders them.
No
BoZo is willing to abandon any principle for power, but he is neither Conservative, nor Unionist.
Added extra bit. Although he has an 80 seat majority, BoZo has already lost votes in the Commons where he failed to bend the party to his will. His revolution may yet be stymied by "Tories"
Government sources say Mr Johnson told Whitehall chiefs this week to set an example by starting to return civil servants to their desks. On a conference call with 200 senior civil servants, he said it was ‘more efficient and productive’ than working from home.
I assume this was done on here last night. I predict a shitstorm of epic proportions if this is true.
Leaving aside the questions of productivity, environment and so on, what business is it of his to interfere in reasonable arrangements between employer and employee? Of does his famed liberalism only apply to him and his mates?
And if he wants all the Civil Service team together, why is he proposing dispersing than to the four corners of the kingdom?
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
In 2017 Mrs May was seeking to turn the country into a dictatorship. She even wrote to everybody explaining that she wanted absolute powers to deal with the fallout from Brexit. Don' you remember?
This ambition and her tone did not go down well with large sections of the public - so they turned to the best instrument available for stopping the Tory dictatorship - and they voted for the Labour Party (not for Corbyn and his project, of course) in large numbers.
By 2019 the Corbyn Labour Party was seen as no improvement at all, so people stuck with the devil they knew (or thought they did). This and the considerable intervention of the Russians swung the elections towards the Conservatives and away from Labour.
On topic, I think I agree with most of David H's points. But I'd also echo what others said - because of Brexit, and because the Conservatives did not have a working majority between 2010 and 2019, this feels as much like a first term government as a fourth term government.
Also, it is run by Boris and Dominic Cummings, and they are much better at electioneering than the everyday grind of governing. So it's government by focus group - in effect a permanent election campaign. This makes it difficult for the opposition to attack, but it isn't exactly conducive to tackling the country's many problems, as Mrs Thatcher certainly did.
Finally, Starmer is no Tony Blair. As others have said, he gets some credit for not being Corbyn, particularly amongst the saner metro elites, but he has nothing to say to the former red wall, let alone Scotland. And since Labour already has most of the seats in our big cities, that's a colossal problem for the party.
Tend to agree. The Scottish problem is that the better Labour does the more likely is the prospect of the SNP helping to run England and Wales, which tend to move against floaters voting Labour.
And the hard left, in particular in its illiberal, anti free speech, anti patriotic forms, has no chance of being elected.
Labour would need a weather changer who by character could change the climate, and render it possible to imagine a moderate Labour government acting in the interests of the working class, patriots, aspirational people, silent (and silenced) majorities, live and let live liberals, supporters of the armed forces and the police, who have a balanced view of our history and sing God save the Queen without a trace of reluctance or irony.
At the moment, they look both too left, too compromised with fascists, too illiberal and, strangely, too white.
It is Vera Lynn culture, not Woke Rap, which gets votes in the provinces, rural areas and small towns.
Far from the Tories being stuck in their ways and never changing anything, as some of their opponents suggest, they seem very willing to radically alter their prospectus if they need to. Every party does alter of course, but for some reason some think the Tories do not, and that hinders them.
No
BoZo is willing to abandon any principle for power, but he is neither Conservative, nor Unionist.
Added extra bit. Although he has an 80 seat majority, BoZo has already lost votes in the Commons where he failed to bend the party to his will. His revolution may yet be stymied by "Tories"
I think you mean he is not conservative, nor unionist, since he is definitely a member of the Conservative and Unionist party. But either way your point is absolutely meaningless, since I didn't say he was either of those things, I said his party are willing to radically alter their prospectus if they need to, which they demonstrably are. Whether we like that about them or not, it is clearly something they will do.
Government sources say Mr Johnson told Whitehall chiefs this week to set an example by starting to return civil servants to their desks. On a conference call with 200 senior civil servants, he said it was ‘more efficient and productive’ than working from home.
I assume this was done on here last night. I predict a shitstorm of epic proportions if this is true.
The official guidance needs to be changed to have a choice to work from home or some such first, right now it is MUST work from home if can.... What he's asking goes outside the guidance which is issued by errm.. the Gov't he heads. This is one aspect of the GOv't I really don't like. It seems to have an official idea of Gov't (Official guidance and so forth) and then Boris comes out with something completely different/contradictory.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
In the current economic climate I’m not sure if there is enough advertising money around to finance the BBC as well as the others.
Long term plan. The current Royal Charter for the BBC doesn't expire until 31 December 2027.
I don't see what's wrong with letting the BBC Trust decide but truly separate from government. Tell the BBC the current licence fee charter that expires in 2027 won't be renewed and they have seven years to decide what they want to do ... Go with advertising like ITV, subscription like Netflix, fundraising like PBS in America or some combination.
Yes but if not the BBC, who will get the licence fee money? Television licences are common in Europe and around the world, not some peculiarly British imposition. I doubt the Treasury will want to give up free money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
If it’s a question of using used pants, I think I will stick to my current arraignments thank you...
Someone else's used pants if you're into that sort of thing...
Regarding the US elections, I note that the direction of travel of US deaths has turned over the last week (7 day average increasing). This follows a sharp rise in cases across a large number of states, including must-win states for Trump like Florida and Texas. Yet places are still mostly open/opening (Disneyland Florida opening this weekend) and mask wearing isn't good.
My initial conclusions are:
1) R will remain above 1 and cases will continue to rise until much more restrictive measures are brought in (e.g. closing bars not enough if everywhere else is open).
2) Hospitalisations and deaths will continue to rise until around 3 weeks after cases peak. Given the rate of increase in cases over the last month, I fear US deaths per day will soon rival their earlier peak (I'd guess by mid-August at the latest).
3) Eventually, this will force governors in the most affected states to impose new lockdowns or much tighter restrictions. Even a de facto lockdown (due to people being scared) will result in a fresh economic hit.
4) A second wave of deaths and job losses in the US, while Europe and east Asia has the virus still under relative control and have improving economies, will be disastrous for the GOP.
From a betting perspective, relative long-shot wins for the Democrats should offer value, particularly in the states most affected by this wave.
Far be it from me to criticise David Herdson, but what a difference a week makes:
However, it’s the third factor which is the most potent: political fundamentals. Keir Starmer has a considerable lead over Boris Johnson in terms of favourability, and is more-or-less level in ‘Best PM’ rating.
Perhaps those favourability ratings are necessary but far from sufficient.
I think Starmer was the right choice for Labour, but only because the other options were worse. I know people don't like career politicians, but there is something to be said for politicians learning the trade. I don't get the sense that Starmer has much nous. Perhaps he should seek some help from someone like David who very much knows his apples.
He comes across as someone who has learnt how to “do politics” from a textbook.
He’s doing all the right things but somehow comes across as a bit phoney.
I suspect people will figure this out
You probably said the same about Blair 25 years ago. It could I guess have been said more recently about Cameron pre-2010. Don't forget he too failed to scrape a majority at the first attempt.
I am not entirely sure your "from a textbook" notion is wrong, but compared to the current incumbent whos source of reference would seem to be a copy of the Beano, I am not sure that is a bad thing.
I disliked Blair because he lied to my face about something when he was shadow employment Secretary. He knew that I knew he was lying but he did it anyway.
Fundamentally he was charismatic and had a very high EQ. Starmer seems to me like he’s trying to hard - some consultant has told him he needs to emote and he’s trying really hard, but it’s like he’s straining to pass a difficult shit
The BBC obituary tells us that Jack Charlton had a spell in charge at Middlesbrough. By this measure did Sir Alex Ferguson have a prolonged spell in charge at Manchester United?
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
If it’s a question of using used pants, I think I will stick to my current arraignments thank you...
Someone else's used pants if you're into that sort of thing...
The Johnny Depp technique?
Underpants have not been so visible since John Major’s day.
It still doesn't seem right that a beautiful drive like Burns made there is not met by cheers and applause. The background murmur is not nearly enough.
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
If it’s a question of using used pants, I think I will stick to my current arraignments thank you...
Someone else's used pants if you're into that sort of thing...
The Johnny Depp technique?
Seriously, though, what was he thinking bringing this libel case? He’d have sustained much less damage by just keeping stumm.
Good article by the way. Starmer gets lots of credit for not being Corbyn, it is a very low bar. Id agree he is not great, but possibly it doesnt matter. His job is to make Labour credible again, he doesnt have to make them hugely popular or have a brilliant set of policies. Perhaps that process requires a steady plodder to set it up for the next leader to aim higher.
The paradox is that Boris won by being a better Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
What Labour needs to do is properly analyse and understand how and why Labour under JC overachieved in 2017 yet underperformed in 2019. I'm not sure its report even asked the right questions.
Id say bin any investigations into 2017 and 2019 - those elections were very unusual and wont be repeated.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
Bin 2019, I wouldn't bin 2017 though. I don't think 2015 redux will result in a win for example: 2015 is perhaps the worst Labour election in a long time (bar 2019). Poor leader, poor policies, no vision.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
In 2017 everyone knew, because of the polls, that it was safe to vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority as there was no chance Jeremy would actually win. They were right, but only just. In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
In 2017 Mrs May was seeking to turn the country into a dictatorship. She even wrote to everybody explaining that she wanted absolute powers to deal with the fallout from Brexit. Don' you remember?
This ambition and her tone did not go down well with large sections of the public - so they turned to the best instrument available for stopping the Tory dictatorship - and they voted for the Labour Party (not for Corbyn and his project, of course) in large numbers.
By 2019 the Corbyn Labour Party was seen as no improvement at all, so people stuck with the devil they knew (or thought they did). This and the considerable intervention of the Russians swung the elections towards the Conservatives and away from Labour.
2017 was poor for the Conservatives but look at 2019 and see how many of Corbyn's 2017 clothes were stolen by Boris. Chant along with the Cabinet: 40 new hospitals; 50,000 new nurses; 20,000 new police officers. Labour, ironically, reverted to 2015 with its incoherent mishmash of every half-baked policy idea to have floated into Seamus Milne's mind.
But I suspect there was also a good deal of under-the-radar denigration of Corbyn and even the odd fib or two in CCHQ's social media campaigning. And as you say, all that is betting without the Russians!
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
If it’s a question of using used pants, I think I will stick to my current arraignments thank you...
Someone else's used pants if you're into that sort of thing...
BJ's besmirched boxers would go down a treat with certain parties on here.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
The tragedy of the BBC was that they had a perfect opportunity.
When digital came in, they had the opportunity to move to a subscription model. Which was only rejected when the license fee was invented, because the technology wasn't there.
Instead it was a proud boast that they had removed the requirement for digital TVs to support encryption - so that at least some wouldn't work with encrypted broadcasts. To block a subscription model.
The second great failing - which is slowly being sorted out - was to stop the nonsense about world wide rights. Previously, the BBC would pay for programs to be made, and often get only limited rights. The company in question (often run by people related to BBC staff!) would then sell a "BBC" program, world wide.
The tragedy is that they could have entered the streaming world with a vast library of content, with world wide rights for the newer stuff. And a subscription system in place.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea
Imagine a BBC - free for UK citizens, paid for (willingly) by the rest of the world. Totally independent of government. No adverts....
Regarding the US elections, I note that the direction of travel of US deaths has turned over the last week (7 day average increasing). This follows a sharp rise in cases across a large number of states, including must-win states for Trump like Florida and Texas. Yet places are still mostly open/opening (Disneyland Florida opening this weekend) and mask wearing isn't good.
My initial conclusions are:
1) R will remain above 1 and cases will continue to rise until much more restrictive measures are brought in (e.g. closing bars not enough if everywhere else is open).
2) Hospitalisations and deaths will continue to rise until around 3 weeks after cases peak. Given the rate of increase in cases over the last month, I fear US deaths per day will soon rival their earlier peak (I'd guess by mid-August at the latest).
3) Eventually, this will force governors in the most affected states to impose new lockdowns or much tighter restrictions. Even a de facto lockdown (due to people being scared) will result in a fresh economic hit.
4) A second wave of deaths and job losses in the US, while Europe and east Asia has the virus still under relative control and have improving economies, will be disastrous for the GOP.
From a betting perspective, relative long-shot wins for the Democrats should offer value, particularly in the states most affected by this wave.
On topic, I think I agree with most of David H's points. But I'd also echo what others said - because of Brexit, and because the Conservatives did not have a working majority between 2010 and 2019, this feels as much like a first term government as a fourth term government.
Also, it is run by Boris and Dominic Cummings, and they are much better at electioneering than the everyday grind of governing. So it's government by focus group - in effect a permanent election campaign. This makes it difficult for the opposition to attack, but it isn't exactly conducive to tackling the country's many problems, as Mrs Thatcher certainly did.
Finally, Starmer is no Tony Blair. As others have said, he gets some credit for not being Corbyn, particularly amongst the saner metro elites, but he has nothing to say to the former red wall, let alone Scotland. And since Labour already has most of the seats in our big cities, that's a colossal problem for the party.
Tend to agree. The Scottish problem is that the better Labour does the more likely is the prospect of the SNP helping to run England and Wales, which tend to move against floaters voting Labour.
If Labour do better in England, that allows them to put the squeeze on the SNP in Scotland. "What's your priority, getting the Tories out or Indyref2?"
1. Just booked a supermarket delivery slot for 2 weeks tomorrow. Didn't even have to be online at midnight to get a slot.
2. I'm heading out on an adventure to fill the car with petrol. First time in 4 months. Asda pay at pump is the safest (and cheapest) option. Face covering, disposable gloves and antibac wipes all lined up. Wish me luck!
We filled up (for the first time since v. early March on 30th, consequent on a visit to Eldest Son, 65 miles away. Now thinking about pub visit. Just been told that although recreational cricket is going to start again, the club bar won't be open. And in summer I do like to sit, pint on the table in front of me, watching the young men of our community playing cricket. Probably watch the young women as well; a women's competition is supposed to be starting locally soon.
To make 2 brilliant masks, get a pair of M & S pants (the trunk ones) with a fancy design printed on them. Just cut round the leg bits. Instant face covering. As they are elasticated they grip your face. Perfect and very comfortable
I got three purpose made masks from Ocado for less than I would have paid for M&S trunks. Having said that, does your method solve the glasses misting up problem?
I’m using used and washed pants so they are free. I’m sat in my lounge mask on, reading glasses on, no misting up at all. I am definitely onto something
If it’s a question of using used pants, I think I will stick to my current arraignments thank you...
Someone else's used pants if you're into that sort of thing...
The Johnny Depp technique?
Seriously, though, what was he thinking bringing this libel case? He’d have sustained much less damage by just keeping stumm.
Johnny Depp was in the situation of *having* to bring the various cases - both here and in the US.
The allegations against him have shut down his career. Unless he comes out of this with some kind of win.
Interesting complaint in today's Guardian. Pubs which are primarily drinking places....... in other words, the sort which are, traditionally, 'at the heart off communities' are complaining that the VAT reductions, because they only apply to food and not to drink, discriminate in favour of the Wetherspoons of this world and against ye olde village hostelry. Personally when I go my local pub; I go for a pint and a natter, and go somewhere else ...... home......for a meal.
Morning OKC.
Summer has started returning here in South Lakeland though we are not quite there yet. Last week was awful with rain and mist .
Anyway, Daughter has reopened pub and restaurant. She has made it look as nice as possible with redecoration, lots of lovely plants outside, 2 marquee areas with fairy lights and lots of lovely cushioned seating inside so that they have the look of a Moroccan-style gazebo.
Face visors for customer-facing staff and hand sanitizers etc but she’s avoided putting yellow strips everywhere so the inside looks welcoming and charming.
The first day was a nightmare - busy - and serving everyone at table slows everything down. Plus some of the locals were terrible at social distancing etc. A bit of a nightmare this: she wants locals to come in and enjoy themselves but equally she can not afford for them to break the guidance because if the virus is caught she has to close the pub down and reputationally it is a disaster.
Not all pubs have reopened. Some of those which have have taken a distinctly relaxed approach to the guidance. One even had recorded music on so loud that people were forced to shout to make themselves heard, which is bloody stupid and a risk.
Trade has been ok - tourists are coming in - and she earned some kudos with one lot on Tuesday when she does not normally do food by opening the kitchen for them as they had nowhere else to go. It’s not high summer-style busy but it’s ok so far. It needs to increase though to earn enough to see her through the autumn and winter. Takeaways are continuing and she’s focusing more and more on food to try and make up for the loss of the standing-at-the-bar trade.
The holiday lets are filling up. But hotels elsewhere are reporting very slow trade. It is very mixed. Not all the breweries have reopened fully either.
Very early days. Very stressful and tiring for her and she is very up and down in her mood and optimism. But she is giving it her best shot and she is learning in these last few weeks what most people pay a fortune to learn on an MBA course.
As to Sunak’s package: a mixed reception. Like most small places she’s on the fixed rate VAT scheme so the VAT cut means nothing and it does not help those pubs which do not do food. (She has assumed for a while that Tim Wetherspoon is the only publican who has Boris’s ear.) The £10 voucher is helpful but would ideally be best September to November, when trade is quiet. Most places around here are shut on a Monday. The £1000 grant per furloughed employee is very helpful. So she hopes to make it through to January.
What she needs now - in common with many others - is good weather, no more shocks, no second wave and no mixed messages from government Ministers.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
In the current economic climate I’m not sure if there is enough advertising money around to finance the BBC as well as the others.
Long term plan. The current Royal Charter for the BBC doesn't expire until 31 December 2027.
The more threatened and under siege it feels the more the BBC is retreating into its shell and comfort zone, and alienating those that might once have been its advocates - or at least neutral.
It has no idea what to do and has an organisation and culture that seems impervious to change - except to go full Woke.
What it needs is phenomenal, inspired and determined leadership.
1. Just booked a supermarket delivery slot for 2 weeks tomorrow. Didn't even have to be online at midnight to get a slot.
2. I'm heading out on an adventure to fill the car with petrol. First time in 4 months. Asda pay at pump is the safest (and cheapest) option. Face covering, disposable gloves and antibac wipes all lined up. Wish me luck!
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
In the current economic climate I’m not sure if there is enough advertising money around to finance the BBC as well as the others.
Long term plan. The current Royal Charter for the BBC doesn't expire until 31 December 2027.
The more threatened and under siege it feels the more the BBC is retreating into its shell and comfort zone, and alienating those that might once have been its advocates - or at least neutral.
It has no idea what to do and has an organisation and culture that seems impervious to change - except to go full Woke.
What it needs is phenomenal, inspired and determined leadership.
It won't get it.
On the woke thing - I fully expect that the BBC will manage to "go woke" at the same time as producing a string of court cases for blatant, obvious discrimination.
Regarding the US elections, I note that the direction of travel of US deaths has turned over the last week (7 day average increasing). This follows a sharp rise in cases across a large number of states, including must-win states for Trump like Florida and Texas. Yet places are still mostly open/opening (Disneyland Florida opening this weekend) and mask wearing isn't good.
My initial conclusions are:
1) R will remain above 1 and cases will continue to rise until much more restrictive measures are brought in (e.g. closing bars not enough if everywhere else is open).
2) Hospitalisations and deaths will continue to rise until around 3 weeks after cases peak. Given the rate of increase in cases over the last month, I fear US deaths per day will soon rival their earlier peak (I'd guess by mid-August at the latest).
3) Eventually, this will force governors in the most affected states to impose new lockdowns or much tighter restrictions. Even a de facto lockdown (due to people being scared) will result in a fresh economic hit.
4) A second wave of deaths and job losses in the US, while Europe and east Asia has the virus still under relative control and have improving economies, will be disastrous for the GOP.
From a betting perspective, relative long-shot wins for the Democrats should offer value, particularly in the states most affected by this wave.
I just hope Biden survives the next 6 weeks.
Its interesting because I think the opposite of this guy.
I think America will revive strongly while the rest of us languish. This is because the government there seems to have the courage to accept that life must go on, Corona or no corona. The courage to accept there is no such thing as a 'new normal'. The courage to tough out a tsumani of bad headlines in the opposition press to press on with economic revival.
The top rated answer on the latest terror story from SAGE in the Mail about a horrible winter Corona epidemic goes along the lines of people are starting to realise that this corona pandemic is a scam.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
The tragedy of the BBC was that they had a perfect opportunity.
When digital came in, they had the opportunity to move to a subscription model. Which was only rejected when the license fee was invented, because the technology wasn't there.
Instead it was a proud boast that they had removed the requirement for digital TVs to support encryption - so that at least some wouldn't work with encrypted broadcasts. To block a subscription model.
The second great failing - which is slowly being sorted out - was to stop the nonsense about world wide rights. Previously, the BBC would pay for programs to be made, and often get only limited rights. The company in question (often run by people related to BBC staff!) would then sell a "BBC" program, world wide.
The tragedy is that they could have entered the streaming world with a vast library of content, with world wide rights for the newer stuff. And a subscription system in place.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea
Imagine a BBC - free for UK citizens, paid for (willingly) by the rest of the world. Totally independent of government. No adverts....
Sigh.
I asked this the other day but might have jumped off before anyone answered. What is the rationale for needing a license fee to watch live (non-BBC) TV?
Interesting complaint in today's Guardian. Pubs which are primarily drinking places....... in other words, the sort which are, traditionally, 'at the heart off communities' are complaining that the VAT reductions, because they only apply to food and not to drink, discriminate in favour of the Wetherspoons of this world and against ye olde village hostelry. Personally when I go my local pub; I go for a pint and a natter, and go somewhere else ...... home......for a meal.
Morning OKC.
Summer has started returning here in South Lakeland though we are not quite there yet. Last week was awful with rain and mist .
Anyway, Daughter has reopened pub and restaurant. She has made it look as nice as possible with redecoration, lots of lovely plants outside, 2 marquee areas with fairy lights and lots of lovely cushioned seating inside so that they have the look of a Moroccan-style gazebo.
Face visors for customer-facing staff and hand sanitizers etc but she’s avoided putting yellow strips everywhere so the inside looks welcoming and charming.
The first day was a nightmare - busy - and serving everyone at table slows everything down. Plus some of the locals were terrible at social distancing etc. A bit of a nightmare this: she wants locals to come in and enjoy themselves but equally she can not afford for them to break the guidance because if the virus is caught she has to close the pub down and reputationally it is a disaster.
Not all pubs have reopened. Some of those which have have taken a distinctly relaxed approach to the guidance. One even had recorded music on so loud that people were forced to shout to make themselves heard, which is bloody stupid and a risk.
Trade has been ok - tourists are coming in - and she earned some kudos with one lot on Tuesday when she does not normally do food by opening the kitchen for them as they had nowhere else to go. It’s not high summer-style busy but it’s ok so far. It needs to increase though to earn enough to see her through the autumn and winter. Takeaways are continuing and she’s focusing more and more on food to try and make up for the loss of the standing-at-the-bar trade.
The holiday lets are filling up. But hotels elsewhere are reporting very slow trade. It is very mixed. Not all the breweries have reopened fully either.
Very early days. Very stressful and tiring for her and she is very up and down in her mood and optimism. But she is giving it her best shot and she is learning in these last few weeks what most people pay a fortune to learn on an MBA course.
As to Sunak’s package: a mixed reception. Like most small places she’s on the fixed rate VAT scheme so the VAT cut means nothing and it does not help those pubs which do not do food. (She has assumed for a while that Tim Wetherspoon is the only publican who has Boris’s ear.) The £10 voucher is helpful but would ideally be best September to November, when trade is quiet. Most places around here are shut on a Monday. The £1000 grant per furloughed employee is very helpful. So she hopes to make it through to January.
What she needs now - in common with many others - is good weather, no more shocks, no second wave and no mixed messages from government Ministers.
I am not sure that I agree with the easy mode part of David's piece either. The government is trying to cope with a pandemic of the likes not really seen since 1918 (Hong Kong flu killed more but caused far, far less disruption). They are trying to cope with the economic chaos that this has caused not just in the UK but right across the world. And they have to deal with a media still obsessed with Brexit which is utterly trivial compared with the first 2 issues but pressing in terms of time.
In addition to all that it appears that Boris, Gove and Cummings have high ambitions for reshaping the way that government is done and improving its efficiency using modern quantative techniques in ways that seem optimistic given the quality of the data available. It's probably the heaviest workload that any government has had since early Thatcher.
Inevitably, mistakes are being made left, right and centre. Things are going too fast, the will is there but the levers either don't exist or are not adequately connected to anything. Lots of clever ideas are announced but struggle to get purchase in the real world. The frustration is evident and growing. Hancock in particular looks near the edge of totally losing it.
This isn't easy street, this is hard, possibly too hard for the talent available. It just doesn't have a lot to do with Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
I’d say that politics is on easy mode for them, while government is on hard mode.
Interesting complaint in today's Guardian. Pubs which are primarily drinking places....... in other words, the sort which are, traditionally, 'at the heart off communities' are complaining that the VAT reductions, because they only apply to food and not to drink, discriminate in favour of the Wetherspoons of this world and against ye olde village hostelry. Personally when I go my local pub; I go for a pint and a natter, and go somewhere else ...... home......for a meal.
Morning OKC.
Summer has started returning here in South Lakeland though we are not quite there yet. Last week was awful with rain and mist .
Anyway, Daughter has reopened pub and restaurant. She has made it look as nice as possible with redecoration, lots of lovely plants outside, 2 marquee areas with fairy lights and lots of lovely cushioned seating inside so that they have the look of a Moroccan-style gazebo.
Face visors for customer-facing staff and hand sanitizers etc but she’s avoided putting yellow strips everywhere so the inside looks welcoming and charming.
The first day was a nightmare - busy - and serving everyone at table slows everything down. Plus some of the locals were terrible at social distancing etc. A bit of a nightmare this: she wants locals to come in and enjoy themselves but equally she can not afford for them to break the guidance because if the virus is caught she has to close the pub down and reputationally it is a disaster.
Not all pubs have reopened. Some of those which have have taken a distinctly relaxed approach to the guidance. One even had recorded music on so loud that people were forced to shout to make themselves heard, which is bloody stupid and a risk.
Trade has been ok - tourists are coming in - and she earned some kudos with one lot on Tuesday when she does not normally do food by opening the kitchen for them as they had nowhere else to go. It’s not high summer-style busy but it’s ok so far. It needs to increase though to earn enough to see her through the autumn and winter. Takeaways are continuing and she’s focusing more and more on food to try and make up for the loss of the standing-at-the-bar trade.
The holiday lets are filling up. But hotels elsewhere are reporting very slow trade. It is very mixed. Not all the breweries have reopened fully either.
Very early days. Very stressful and tiring for her and she is very up and down in her mood and optimism. But she is giving it her best shot and she is learning in these last few weeks what most people pay a fortune to learn on an MBA course.
As to Sunak’s package: a mixed reception. Like most small places she’s on the fixed rate VAT scheme so the VAT cut means nothing and it does not help those pubs which do not do food. (She has assumed for a while that Tim Wetherspoon is the only publican who has Boris’s ear.) The £10 voucher is helpful but would ideally be best September to November, when trade is quiet. Most places around here are shut on a Monday. The £1000 grant per furloughed employee is very helpful. So she hopes to make it through to January.
What she needs now - in common with many others - is good weather, no more shocks, no second wave and no mixed messages from government Ministers.
Well good luck to her. We are going to our local cafe which has opened its awning as an "outside" area today for the first time. Slightly surprised that they have got away with it to be honest but good luck to them too. We all (except those shielding, of course) need to get out and about again encouraging and helping these establishments if we want them to survive.
Interesting complaint in today's Guardian. Pubs which are primarily drinking places....... in other words, the sort which are, traditionally, 'at the heart off communities' are complaining that the VAT reductions, because they only apply to food and not to drink, discriminate in favour of the Wetherspoons of this world and against ye olde village hostelry. Personally when I go my local pub; I go for a pint and a natter, and go somewhere else ...... home......for a meal.
Morning OKC.
Summer has started returning here in South Lakeland though we are not quite there yet. Last week was awful with rain and mist .
Anyway, Daughter has reopened pub and restaurant. She has made it look as nice as possible with redecoration, lots of lovely plants outside, 2 marquee areas with fairy lights and lots of lovely cushioned seating inside so that they have the look of a Moroccan-style gazebo.
Face visors for customer-facing staff and hand sanitizers etc but she’s avoided putting yellow strips everywhere so the inside looks welcoming and charming.
The first day was a nightmare - busy - and serving everyone at table slows everything down. Plus some of the locals were terrible at social distancing etc. A bit of a nightmare this: she wants locals to come in and enjoy themselves but equally she can not afford for them to break the guidance because if the virus is caught she has to close the pub down and reputationally it is a disaster.
Not all pubs have reopened. Some of those which have have taken a distinctly relaxed approach to the guidance. One even had recorded music on so loud that people were forced to shout to make themselves heard, which is bloody stupid and a risk.
Trade has been ok - tourists are coming in - and she earned some kudos with one lot on Tuesday when she does not normally do food by opening the kitchen for them as they had nowhere else to go. It’s not high summer-style busy but it’s ok so far. It needs to increase though to earn enough to see her through the autumn and winter. Takeaways are continuing and she’s focusing more and more on food to try and make up for the loss of the standing-at-the-bar trade.
The holiday lets are filling up. But hotels elsewhere are reporting very slow trade. It is very mixed. Not all the breweries have reopened fully either.
Very early days. Very stressful and tiring for her and she is very up and down in her mood and optimism. But she is giving it her best shot and she is learning in these last few weeks what most people pay a fortune to learn on an MBA course.
As to Sunak’s package: a mixed reception. Like most small places she’s on the fixed rate VAT scheme so the VAT cut means nothing and it does not help those pubs which do not do food. (She has assumed for a while that Tim Wetherspoon is the only publican who has Boris’s ear.) The £10 voucher is helpful but would ideally be best September to November, when trade is quiet. Most places around here are shut on a Monday. The £1000 grant per furloughed employee is very helpful. So she hopes to make it through to January.
What she needs now - in common with many others - is good weather, no more shocks, no second wave and no mixed messages from government Ministers.
Give her my best wishes, Cyclefree.
It sounds like she's doing a fantastic job.
The masks in shops thing is about to backfire spectacularly.
Interesting complaint in today's Guardian. Pubs which are primarily drinking places....... in other words, the sort which are, traditionally, 'at the heart off communities' are complaining that the VAT reductions, because they only apply to food and not to drink, discriminate in favour of the Wetherspoons of this world and against ye olde village hostelry. Personally when I go my local pub; I go for a pint and a natter, and go somewhere else ...... home......for a meal.
Morning OKC.
Summer has started returning here in South Lakeland though we are not quite there yet. Last week was awful with rain and mist .
Anyway, Daughter has reopened pub and restaurant. She has made it look as nice as possible with redecoration, lots of lovely plants outside, 2 marquee areas with fairy lights and lots of lovely cushioned seating inside so that they have the look of a Moroccan-style gazebo.
Face visors for customer-facing staff and hand sanitizers etc but she’s avoided putting yellow strips everywhere so the inside looks welcoming and charming.
The first day was a nightmare - busy - and serving everyone at table slows everything down. Plus some of the locals were terrible at social distancing etc. A bit of a nightmare this: she wants locals to come in and enjoy themselves but equally she can not afford for them to break the guidance because if the virus is caught she has to close the pub down and reputationally it is a disaster.
Not all pubs have reopened. Some of those which have have taken a distinctly relaxed approach to the guidance. One even had recorded music on so loud that people were forced to shout to make themselves heard, which is bloody stupid and a risk.
Trade has been ok - tourists are coming in - and she earned some kudos with one lot on Tuesday when she does not normally do food by opening the kitchen for them as they had nowhere else to go. It’s not high summer-style busy but it’s ok so far. It needs to increase though to earn enough to see her through the autumn and winter. Takeaways are continuing and she’s focusing more and more on food to try and make up for the loss of the standing-at-the-bar trade.
The holiday lets are filling up. But hotels elsewhere are reporting very slow trade. It is very mixed. Not all the breweries have reopened fully either.
Very early days. Very stressful and tiring for her and she is very up and down in her mood and optimism. But she is giving it her best shot and she is learning in these last few weeks what most people pay a fortune to learn on an MBA course.
As to Sunak’s package: a mixed reception. Like most small places she’s on the fixed rate VAT scheme so the VAT cut means nothing and it does not help those pubs which do not do food. (She has assumed for a while that Tim Wetherspoon is the only publican who has Boris’s ear.) The £10 voucher is helpful but would ideally be best September to November, when trade is quiet. Most places around here are shut on a Monday. The £1000 grant per furloughed employee is very helpful. So she hopes to make it through to January.
What she needs now - in common with many others - is good weather, no more shocks, no second wave and no mixed messages from government Ministers.
Well good luck to her. We are going to our local cafe which has opened its awning as an "outside" area today for the first time. Slightly surprised that they have got away with it to be honest but good luck to them too. We all (except those shielding, of course) need to get out and about again encouraging and helping these establishments if we want them to survive.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
The tragedy of the BBC was that they had a perfect opportunity.
When digital came in, they had the opportunity to move to a subscription model. Which was only rejected when the license fee was invented, because the technology wasn't there.
Instead it was a proud boast that they had removed the requirement for digital TVs to support encryption - so that at least some wouldn't work with encrypted broadcasts. To block a subscription model.
The second great failing - which is slowly being sorted out - was to stop the nonsense about world wide rights. Previously, the BBC would pay for programs to be made, and often get only limited rights. The company in question (often run by people related to BBC staff!) would then sell a "BBC" program, world wide.
The tragedy is that they could have entered the streaming world with a vast library of content, with world wide rights for the newer stuff. And a subscription system in place.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea
Imagine a BBC - free for UK citizens, paid for (willingly) by the rest of the world. Totally independent of government. No adverts....
Sigh.
The BBC need to just focus on making very good programmes.
As it is they obsess far too much about demographics and representation.
But, if you make the good stuff, the rest will follow. Not the other way round as they seem to think.
I hope the BBC sticks to its guns and removes the license fee from over 70s. Utterly ridiculous it's free to them.
You mean you hope the Government sticks to its guns, in allowing the BBC the licence (sorry!) to do that and giving them little alternative.
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
Funding from general taxation would remove any independence the BBC currently enjoys. At least with the licence fee it is negotiated on a fairly long timescale. Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
I'd allow advertising. That is how ITV manages.
The tragedy of the BBC was that they had a perfect opportunity.
When digital came in, they had the opportunity to move to a subscription model. Which was only rejected when the license fee was invented, because the technology wasn't there.
Instead it was a proud boast that they had removed the requirement for digital TVs to support encryption - so that at least some wouldn't work with encrypted broadcasts. To block a subscription model.
The second great failing - which is slowly being sorted out - was to stop the nonsense about world wide rights. Previously, the BBC would pay for programs to be made, and often get only limited rights. The company in question (often run by people related to BBC staff!) would then sell a "BBC" program, world wide.
The tragedy is that they could have entered the streaming world with a vast library of content, with world wide rights for the newer stuff. And a subscription system in place.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea
Imagine a BBC - free for UK citizens, paid for (willingly) by the rest of the world. Totally independent of government. No adverts....
Sigh.
I asked this the other day but might have jumped off before anyone answered. What is the rationale for needing a license fee to watch live (non-BBC) TV?
The philosophical reason is that the BBC et al see the License Fee as a TV watching tax. If you watch "TV" (moving images not at a cinema), in their view, you owe them.
The legal reason - you'd need to speak to a lawyer.
Comments
I wonder whether the Conservatives' stratospheric polling lead amongst the elderly can survive the bills hitting the doormats.
The licence fee is, in its new form, substantially worse than the poll tax ever was, and Labour should make the link. It's basically a flat rate household tax, without the reduction for small households in either the poll tax or council tax, and with an income-related discount applying to only a small proportion of only one age group, with disproportionately high administration costs. If ever there was a tax that Labour should abolish in favour of funding the same services by other sources of existing taxation, it is this one.
The challenge for Labour is work out a coalition that can give a majority and buy into Labour a group of core values. That coalition will need to include far more elderly voters and probably Scots. Its going to be tricky, particularly if Tories are spending big already. Their best chance of success, by far, isnt that they get it right, its that the Tories fail and implode and Labour offer something credible.
But they didn't, so they don't. People between 18 and 40 are the ones getting shafted.
Commutation rather than pardon, so that Stone retains his Fifth Amendment rights not to testify, which he’d lose if pardoned.
Trump is a gangster.
In addition to all that it appears that Boris, Gove and Cummings have high ambitions for reshaping the way that government is done and improving its efficiency using modern quantative techniques in ways that seem optimistic given the quality of the data available. It's probably the heaviest workload that any government has had since early Thatcher.
Inevitably, mistakes are being made left, right and centre. Things are going too fast, the will is there but the levers either don't exist or are not adequately connected to anything. Lots of clever ideas are announced but struggle to get purchase in the real world. The frustration is evident and growing. Hancock in particular looks near the edge of totally losing it.
This isn't easy street, this is hard, possibly too hard for the talent available. It just doesn't have a lot to do with Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
Better surely to go for a subscription model? That way you won’t get a government announcing a 50% cut to BBC funding to pay for an increase in NHS funding just after Panorama do an expose on government corruption.
Still obsessed with Brexit, I see.
Like a lot of other unpleasant things Cameron and Osborne did, their devious minds ensured that the blame was shifted on to other people.
As the LibDems found out to their cost.
Labour needs to figure out what has happened since 2005 and work out why in 2017, although they lost, they did a lot less badly than they should have done.
2019 was basically how 2017 should have turned out and yet it didn't. Something happened in that election - and May being unpopular is not the only answer, in my view.
Starmer will likely take a 2017-lite manifesto and rap it in the Union Jack. He'll try and play the financially prudent angle and get the IFS on board I would suspect - and hope the Tories are more unpopular than him.
Once a shopper is in a store most of them will pay the price if they like the item and it’s in the range.
My guess is that shops keep the money as a contribution to fixed costs. It’s also complicated and expensive to change prices
In 2019 far fewer were taking that chance as they did not believe the polls.
I think it's possible we end up in some kind of EEA by another name arrangement.
The form actual Brexit takes is going to have a huge effect on how much prosperity there is, which defines everything else.
Trouble is that, although smarter Conservatives have realised that a WTO / worse than Australia arrangement will be political suicide, they are yet to accept that a Canada type arrangement will introduce more red tape than the volume and speed of UK-EU trade can cope with, so will be pretty terrible as well.
But one good thing to come out of Covid is I have learnt how to have a virtual pub session on Skype with friends and mail-order beer, so when I am too decrepit to go out I won't be dependent on the television anyway. At the beginning of lockdown I was thinking of getting a fancier telly and a TV package rather than relying on Freeview, but I find I have hardly watched it.
I think there is a lot in what correcthorsebattery says. I don't think a lot of leave voters were voting *FOR* Corbyn in 2017 but I'm not convinced it was just an anti May vote either.
I'm most interested in leave voters who voted Labour in 2017 (especially new votes for Lab) but stayed at home in 2019.
https://twitter.com/F1/status/1281879653490319361
As an aside, Hamilton and Albon starting side by side could be interesting.
I’m deeply offended...
Also, it is run by Boris and Dominic Cummings, and they are much better at electioneering than the everyday grind of governing. So it's government by focus group - in effect a permanent election campaign. This makes it difficult for the opposition to attack, but it isn't exactly conducive to tackling the country's many problems, as Mrs Thatcher certainly did.
Finally, Starmer is no Tony Blair. As others have said, he gets some credit for not being Corbyn, particularly amongst the saner metro elites, but he has nothing to say to the former red wall, let alone Scotland. And since Labour already has most of the seats in our big cities, that's a colossal problem for the party.
We're physicists, we understand everything.
The Mekon who works in No 10 keeps saying so.
Government sources say Mr Johnson told Whitehall chiefs this week to set an example by starting to return civil servants to their desks. On a conference call with 200 senior civil servants, he said it was ‘more efficient and productive’ than working from home.
I assume this was done on here last night. I predict a shitstorm of epic proportions if this is true.
The technical challenge is pretty much non-existent as iPlayer already requires a login.
BoZo is willing to abandon any principle for power, but he is neither Conservative, nor Unionist.
Added extra bit. Although he has an 80 seat majority, BoZo has already lost votes in the Commons where he failed to bend the party to his will. His revolution may yet be stymied by "Tories"
1. Just booked a supermarket delivery slot for 2 weeks tomorrow. Didn't even have to be online at midnight to get a slot.
2. I'm heading out on an adventure to fill the car with petrol. First time in 4 months. Asda pay at pump is the safest (and cheapest) option. Face covering, disposable gloves and antibac wipes all lined up. Wish me luck!
I am not sure the contrast is with Cameron and Osborne in 2010, when they had been in opposition for a number of years, but with 2006 when they had just started and Labour had just won its third majority. It took time to build the relentless focus, to reinvent the Tories and to build credibility in the country. It also took a major economic shock and Labour infighting.
The Tories have already helped Labour get back into the game earlier than I expected. Outside of the predictable far-left malcontents the party is feeling happier and more united than it has for a long while. The long journey has begun. It has a few years to run. But the one thing Labour has is time.
What is also necessary is a LibDem revival of sorts. That is out of Labour's control, but - you never know - Johnson/Cummings might help there, too.
If there's a gap opening up its on the right, not the left. It would be much easier to critique the government from there.
And if he wants all the Civil Service team together, why is he proposing dispersing than to the four corners of the kingdom?
Silly, shallow man.
This ambition and her tone did not go down well with large sections of the public - so they turned to the best instrument available for stopping the Tory dictatorship - and they voted for the Labour Party (not for Corbyn and his project, of course) in large numbers.
By 2019 the Corbyn Labour Party was seen as no improvement at all, so people stuck with the devil they knew (or thought they did). This and the considerable intervention of the Russians swung the elections towards the Conservatives and away from Labour.
Numbers like these used to matter. GBP4bn used to be a lot of money.
I reckon that when Sunak asks middle England for money to pay for his panic, his cowardice and his folly, they will again.
And the hard left, in particular in its illiberal, anti free speech, anti patriotic forms, has no chance of being elected.
Labour would need a weather changer who by character could change the climate, and render it possible to imagine a moderate Labour government acting in the interests of the working class, patriots, aspirational people, silent (and silenced) majorities, live and let live liberals, supporters of the armed forces and the police, who have a balanced view of our history and sing God save the Queen without a trace of reluctance or irony.
At the moment, they look both too left, too compromised with fascists, too illiberal and, strangely, too white.
It is Vera Lynn culture, not Woke Rap, which gets votes in the provinces, rural areas and small towns.
This is one aspect of the GOv't I really don't like. It seems to have an official idea of Gov't (Official guidance and so forth) and then Boris comes out with something completely different/contradictory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
My initial conclusions are:
1) R will remain above 1 and cases will continue to rise until much more restrictive measures are brought in (e.g. closing bars not enough if everywhere else is open).
2) Hospitalisations and deaths will continue to rise until around 3 weeks after cases peak. Given the rate of increase in cases over the last month, I fear US deaths per day will soon rival their earlier peak (I'd guess by mid-August at the latest).
3) Eventually, this will force governors in the most affected states to impose new lockdowns or much tighter restrictions. Even a de facto lockdown (due to people being scared) will result in a fresh economic hit.
4) A second wave of deaths and job losses in the US, while Europe and east Asia has the virus still under relative control and have improving economies, will be disastrous for the GOP.
From a betting perspective, relative long-shot wins for the Democrats should offer value, particularly in the states most affected by this wave.
He doesn't win every vote, which means at least 40 of "his party" are not willing to abandon their principles for him.
That he won them seats last time means nothing.
But an extremely clever and charismatic one.
its close to GBP5bn actually.
I don't think Labour can force him to raise his game because he can't be arsed.
But, they can expose that.
I expect Boris to drag down the Tory party and the Union down with him.
Where he is vulnerable is if a revived Brexit party style party regains traction on the right.
But I suspect there was also a good deal of under-the-radar denigration of Corbyn and even the odd fib or two in CCHQ's social media campaigning. And as you say, all that is betting without the Russians!
When digital came in, they had the opportunity to move to a subscription model. Which was only rejected when the license fee was invented, because the technology wasn't there.
Instead it was a proud boast that they had removed the requirement for digital TVs to support encryption - so that at least some wouldn't work with encrypted broadcasts. To block a subscription model.
The second great failing - which is slowly being sorted out - was to stop the nonsense about world wide rights. Previously, the BBC would pay for programs to be made, and often get only limited rights. The company in question (often run by people related to BBC staff!) would then sell a "BBC" program, world wide.
The tragedy is that they could have entered the streaming world with a vast library of content, with world wide rights for the newer stuff. And a subscription system in place.
Studies/polls have shown that the sale of such subscription in the US alone, would exceed the current license fee. Which suggests an idea
Imagine a BBC - free for UK citizens, paid for (willingly) by the rest of the world. Totally independent of government. No adverts....
Sigh.
It's a typical line of attack from a Remainer journalist, and an ineffective one.
We filled up (for the first time since v. early March on 30th, consequent on a visit to Eldest Son, 65 miles away. Now thinking about pub visit. Just been told that although recreational cricket is going to start again, the club bar won't be open.
And in summer I do like to sit, pint on the table in front of me, watching the young men of our community playing cricket. Probably watch the young women as well; a women's competition is supposed to be starting locally soon.
The allegations against him have shut down his career. Unless he comes out of this with some kind of win.
Summer has started returning here in South Lakeland though we are not quite there yet. Last week was awful with rain and mist .
Anyway, Daughter has reopened pub and restaurant. She has made it look as nice as possible with redecoration, lots of lovely plants outside, 2 marquee areas with fairy lights and lots of lovely cushioned seating inside so that they have the look of a Moroccan-style gazebo.
Face visors for customer-facing staff and hand sanitizers etc but she’s avoided putting yellow strips everywhere so the inside looks welcoming and charming.
The first day was a nightmare - busy - and serving everyone at table slows everything down. Plus some of the locals were terrible at social distancing etc. A bit of a nightmare this: she wants locals to come in and enjoy themselves but equally she can not afford for them to break the guidance because if the virus is caught she has to close the pub down and reputationally it is a disaster.
Not all pubs have reopened. Some of those which have have taken a distinctly relaxed approach to the guidance. One even had recorded music on so loud that people were forced to shout to make themselves heard, which is bloody stupid and a risk.
Trade has been ok - tourists are coming in - and she earned some kudos with one lot on Tuesday when she does not normally do food by opening the kitchen for them as they had nowhere else to go. It’s not high summer-style busy but it’s ok so far. It needs to increase though to earn enough to see her through the autumn and winter. Takeaways are continuing and she’s focusing more and more on food to try and make up for the loss of the standing-at-the-bar trade.
The holiday lets are filling up. But hotels elsewhere are reporting very slow trade. It is very mixed. Not all the breweries have reopened fully either.
Very early days. Very stressful and tiring for her and she is very up and down in her mood and optimism. But she is giving it her best shot and she is learning in these last few weeks what most people pay a fortune to learn on an MBA course.
As to Sunak’s package: a mixed reception. Like most small places she’s on the fixed rate VAT scheme so the VAT cut means nothing and it does not help those pubs which do not do food. (She has assumed for a while that Tim Wetherspoon is the only publican who has Boris’s ear.) The £10 voucher is helpful but would ideally be best September to November, when trade is quiet. Most places around here are shut on a Monday. The £1000 grant per furloughed employee is very helpful. So she hopes to make it through to January.
What she needs now - in common with many others - is good weather, no more shocks, no second wave and no mixed messages from government Ministers.
It has no idea what to do and has an organisation and culture that seems impervious to change - except to go full Woke.
What it needs is phenomenal, inspired and determined leadership.
It won't get it.
I think America will revive strongly while the rest of us languish. This is because the government there seems to have the courage to accept that life must go on, Corona or no corona. The courage to accept there is no such thing as a 'new normal'. The courage to tough out a tsumani of bad headlines in the opposition press to press on with economic revival.
The top rated answer on the latest terror story from SAGE in the Mail about a horrible winter Corona epidemic goes along the lines of people are starting to realise that this corona pandemic is a scam.
It sounds like she's doing a fantastic job.
As it is they obsess far too much about demographics and representation.
But, if you make the good stuff, the rest will follow. Not the other way round as they seem to think.
The legal reason - you'd need to speak to a lawyer.