USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
This sort of logic does seem to hold sway with Tesla now being valued at $480 billion.
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
The BBC emphatically does not provide something for everyone, and I do not see any way of making it do so. And I would not want to try.
I would much rather it kept on doing exactly what it wanted, and I sanctioned it by withdrawing my custom if I wanted.
I then might re-introduce my custom if I felt it provided balanced programming.
That's what I did with Sky and BT. As soon as Carlos Kickaball took to the knee I was out of there.
Good polling for Biden with the exception of Pennysylvania.
For some reason they forgot to mention Arizona where Morning Consult have Biden at +10%.
Based on that, Trump would have to get a swing back of 7% (to gain Minnesota).
Otherwise Biden would still pick up Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and with no losses reach 269 with the probable further pickup of Nebraska District 2 taking him to 270.
269 though still gives Trump the Presidency as the House would vote on state lines and most states have a GOP majority even if the Dems have more representatives overall nationally (the Senate would determine the Vice Presidency).
So Biden needs to pick up the Nebraska 2nd District as well as Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and hold all the 2016 Hillary states to win the EC and become President
Why would the Tories care about damaging the prospects of people under 30? They've been doing it for 10 years, we don't vote for them so why would they care
Because eventually they will.
As shown by how plenty of those who were under 30 ten years ago still vote Tory now, and probably in a higher proportion as a cohort (that is, despite being supposedly targeted, more of that group support Tories than before, albeit from a low bsse).
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult at 51% in the nationwide popular vote today but not over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
We did this. Geoff Norcross. Henning Wehn is a Merkel supporter. Simon Evans is a fiscal righty but social liberal. An orange Booker.
Geoff is on the BBC constantly already, don't know the others but fine, get them on
Indeed. There is the paucity. Ironically comedy is one of the most entrepreneurial, meritocratic professions there can be. If an audience doesn't find you funny it doesn't matter who your Dad is or where you went to school. You also can't pay to get a qualification in how to do it.
Which leads to an interesting question. In the 70's and 80's there was a significant number of commedians who could earn a living making jokes from the rightish side of politics. Now there are very few, but there is still 40% of the UK population prepared to vote blue.
This suggests to me that people who vote Conservative are not prepared to pay for rightish comedy. If this is not the case, why are rightish commedians unsuccessful?
Because many older people, who vote blue, lose their sense of humor cause they spend their lives moaning and harking after the long gone golden days.
Probably, though as youngish person not that long ago it doesnt seem like the youthful have an aversion to moaning or have much humour on many issues. Thats why they're mad and not going to take it anymore or some such.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
The simple thought experiment of "what would the prices be if the pols were reversed" is quite profound.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
I wonder whether the polls will end up being like one of those air crash tragedies where the pilots rely on faulty equipment readings and ignore everything that is happening right in front of their eyes.
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
Good polling for Biden with the exception of Pennysylvania.
For some reason they forgot to mention Arizona where Morning Consult have Biden at +10%.
Based on that, Trump would have to get a swing back of 7% (to gain Minnesota).
Otherwise Biden would still pick up Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and with no losses reach 269 with the probable further pickup of Nebraska District 2 taking him to 270.
269 though still gives Trump the Presidency as the House would vote on state lines and most states have a GOP majority even if the Dems have more representatives overall nationally (the Senate would determine the Vice Presidency).
So Biden needs to pick up the Nebraska 2nd District as well as Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and hold all the 2016 Hillary states to win the EC and become President
Yes, that was my point. The only two polls we've seen from the 2nd district had Biden 11% and 7% ahead in May and June.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
The simple thought experiment of "what would the prices be if the pols were reversed" is the quite profound.
Trump would be about 1-5, and we'd be promoting Biden as a (Probably losing) value bet that should be around 5-2 not the 4-1 the bookies are offering.
Shagger says "People are going back to the office in huge numbers across our country, and quite right too".
A straight lie? Or just clueless? Or a combination of the two?
What are the stats on this? I doubt no one is going back.
There are probably a lot of regional variations.
Car traffic is back to pre-COVID normal where I live in the North West. For people who can drive to work I imagine far more are now going back to the office, which would amount to huge numbers.
For people who live in a bubble where only trains exist and the rest of the country doesn't matter it may be different.
Surely it is factual to say both that people are going back in huge numbers and that people are staying away in huge numbers. Both are right.
Car traffic back to "normal" and public transport empty = large numbers not going into the office. As various commentators have pointed out the centre of our large towns and cities are visibly quiet. A long list of companies continuing a flexible working policy, I'm struggling to think of any who have come out and said they have scrapped social distancing so everyone back to their desks.
Johnson lying again again again.
It's possible to reopen offices without abandoning social distancing. As I asked, what are the stats on this?
Its *possible* in theory. But like with most schools its not *possible* in so many cases when you look at the space available vs the number of people. My own office, absolutely no chance. Unless the government want to mandate the wearing of masks?
OK, but other anecdotes posted on here suggest people are returning to the office. Without data I don't think it's possible to make the claim that Johnson is lying.
I can make the claim that he's lying based on two things. One - the reportage of hacks of all political persuasions, friends and my own eyes contradicting his statement. Two - he's a proven repeated liar thus prone to lying.
Boris has been fired for lying on 3 occasions. That alone is enough to doubt any words that comes out of his mouth.
Certainly it is reason to doubt. But it doesnt mean everything he says is a lie, particularly if its worded in a way that can be true without meaning as much as it implies.
Politicians actually rarely outright lie, it's too risky to be worth it (unless you're Trump). That's why they obfuscate, generalise or cherry pick.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
On the polling Biden would almost certainly win the national popular vote as Hillary did in an election tomorrow with 51% or so, ie an even higher voteshare than the 48% she got in 2016, however as Emerson showed yesterday on a forced choice Trump gets up to 49% and that would be enough for Trump to win Florida and Pennsylvania leaving the EC still neck and neck
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
Which is why I'm not advocating that as an alternative. That would not be acceptable to me either.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
I wonder whether the polls will end up being like one of those air crash tragedies where the pilots rely on faulty equipment readings and ignore everything that is happening right in front of their eyes.
Interesting also Trump in NH
Alleged bias in poll results simply indicates the bias of the person doing the alleging, and little else.
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
Which is why I'm not advocating that as an alternative. That would not be acceptable to me either.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
I wonder whether the polls will end up being like one of those air crash tragedies where the pilots rely on faulty equipment readings and ignore everything that is happening right in front of their eyes.
Interesting also Trump in NH
In your analogy, is the doomed pilot the pollsters who are for some unaccountable reason gathering incorrect data, or the punters lumping on Trump in spite of the only publicly available data (polls)?
As I recall the 2016 polls weren't far off the pv but fcuked up on the state polIing, whereas the betting market (as an indicator) took a dump.
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
I wonder whether the polls will end up being like one of those air crash tragedies where the pilots rely on faulty equipment readings and ignore everything that is happening right in front of their eyes.
Interesting also Trump in NH
Alleged bias in poll results simply indicates the bias of the person doing the alleging, and little else.
That would be true if the betting and most of the polls coincided.
They completely don't.
There are plenty of people saying these polls are wrong with hard cash.
Good polling for Biden with the exception of Pennysylvania.
For some reason they forgot to mention Arizona where Morning Consult have Biden at +10%.
Based on that, Trump would have to get a swing back of 7% (to gain Minnesota).
Otherwise Biden would still pick up Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and with no losses reach 269 with the probable further pickup of Nebraska District 2 taking him to 270.
269 though still gives Trump the Presidency as the House would vote on state lines and most states have a GOP majority even if the Dems have more representatives overall nationally (the Senate would determine the Vice Presidency).
So Biden needs to pick up the Nebraska 2nd District as well as Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and hold all the 2016 Hillary states to win the EC and become President
Yes, that was my point. The only two polls we've seen from the 2nd district had Biden 11% and 7% ahead in May and June.
Perhaps, though even Romney in 2012 not just Trump in 2016 won the 2nd district, although Obama won it in 2008.
It is possible it could see an Arizona style swing to give Biden the presidency of course yes
Shagger says "People are going back to the office in huge numbers across our country, and quite right too".
A straight lie? Or just clueless? Or a combination of the two?
What are the stats on this? I doubt no one is going back.
There are probably a lot of regional variations.
Car traffic is back to pre-COVID normal where I live in the North West. For people who can drive to work I imagine far more are now going back to the office, which would amount to huge numbers.
For people who live in a bubble where only trains exist and the rest of the country doesn't matter it may be different.
Surely it is factual to say both that people are going back in huge numbers and that people are staying away in huge numbers. Both are right.
Car traffic back to "normal" and public transport empty = large numbers not going into the office. As various commentators have pointed out the centre of our large towns and cities are visibly quiet. A long list of companies continuing a flexible working policy, I'm struggling to think of any who have come out and said they have scrapped social distancing so everyone back to their desks.
Johnson lying again again again.
It's possible to reopen offices without abandoning social distancing. As I asked, what are the stats on this?
Its *possible* in theory. But like with most schools its not *possible* in so many cases when you look at the space available vs the number of people. My own office, absolutely no chance. Unless the government want to mandate the wearing of masks?
OK, but other anecdotes posted on here suggest people are returning to the office. Without data I don't think it's possible to make the claim that Johnson is lying.
I can make the claim that he's lying based on two things. One - the reportage of hacks of all political persuasions, friends and my own eyes contradicting his statement. Two - he's a proven repeated liar thus prone to lying.
Boris has been fired for lying on 3 occasions. That alone is enough to doubt any words that comes out of his mouth.
Certainly it is reason to doubt. But it doesnt mean everything he says is a lie, ...
That Corbyn twitter poll win. Jezbollah cultists turned out in their droves to vote. In a Poll. Held by Times Radio. As in The Times. As in Rupert Murdoch. As in the Mainstream Media.
I thought that foaming dog fever people were against the MSM/Murdoch and consider everything that Tory organisations like The Times and YouGuv to be Tory propaganda?
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
The simple thought experiment of "what would the prices be if the pols were reversed" is the quite profound.
Trump would be about 1-5, and we'd be promoting Biden as a (Probably losing) value bet that should be around 5-2 not the 4-1 the bookies are offering.
If the polls were reversed I couldn't imagine a price I would touch Biden at. Certainly have to be more than 4-1!
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
The simple thought experiment of "what would the prices be if the pols were reversed" is the quite profound.
Trump would be about 1-5, and we'd be promoting Biden as a (Probably losing) value bet that should be around 5-2 not the 4-1 the bookies are offering.
If the polls were reversed I couldn't imagine a price I would touch Biden at. Certainly have to be more than 4-1!
Well to look at it the other way,
What price would you be prepared to back Trump down to ?
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
The service is already restricted by payment. The license fee. The only thing people are suggesting is that those who don't wish to receive or watch bbc but for example do wish to watch sky 1 don't have to pay and that only those that want bbc content pay for it
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
Biden is over 50% including undecideds nationally with Morning Consult but over 50% in quite enough states to get over 269 and win an EC majority in the same poll
On those polls Biden should be streets ahead in the betting.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
I wonder whether the polls will end up being like one of those air crash tragedies where the pilots rely on faulty equipment readings and ignore everything that is happening right in front of their eyes.
Interesting also Trump in NH
Alleged bias in poll results simply indicates the bias of the person doing the alleging, and little else.
Though 538 has done some useful work on polling accuracy based on past predictive ability, rather than "The guys who runs this poll smells".
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
The service is already restricted by payment. The license fee. The only thing people are suggesting is that those who don't wish to receive or watch bbc but for example do wish to watch sky 1 don't have to pay and that only those that want bbc content pay for it
Precisely.
I don't get why some people are horrified by the idea of the BBC moving to a subscription model. The BBC already has a subscription model FFS. The problem is everyone who wants to watch anything live is compelled by law to subscribe even if they want to watch other channels.
When the BBC was the sole or primary broadcaster that wasn't an issue. Its not the case anymore now though.
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
You are correct, unfortunately by the point I went and checked on my information it was too late to edit. Sweden has moved to a similar system based on income tax and no longer charges a licence fee directly. Greece does the electricity bills thing.
My personal choice would be the Spanish system with the BBC receiving a block grant to keep it ad free or with limited advertising which would allow the niche public service programming to continue, but I'd enhance it by allowing the BBC to more directly profit from it's bigger hits rather than having to keep it's commercial arm at a distance from the actual corporation.
In any event, direct funding through TV licences seem to be on the decline in Europe at least, but no one has gone down the subscription service avenue precisely because it removes the entire point of public service broadcasting.
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
You are correct, unfortunately by the point I went and checked on my information it was too late to edit. Sweden has moved to a similar system based on tax too. Greece does the electricity bills thing. My personal choice would be the Spanish system with the BBC receiving a block grant to keep it ad free or with limited advertising which would allow the niche public service programming to continue, but I'd enhance it by allowing the BBC to more directly profit from it's bigger hits rather than having to keep it's commercial arm at arms length.
What's wrong with keeping the existing subscription model but making the subscriptions voluntary?
I don't have to read that column to know what it will say.
"The BLM riots are scaring ordinary decent Americans. They want to see a tough, no nonsense response and it's my old mucker Donald not sleepy Joe Biden who gets this. If things carry on as they are it will be 4 more years of President Trump."
USC Dornsife tracker has another 0.5 off Biden and the same on Trump, it's not much but it matches the direction everything else is moving in: https://election.usc.edu/
Trump backers have taken that apparent movement, assumed it continues to November 6th, accelerated it, assumed the best polls for Trump are the correct polls AND added in shy Trump voters on top.
The simple thought experiment of "what would the prices be if the pols were reversed" is the quite profound.
Trump would be about 1-5, and we'd be promoting Biden as a (Probably losing) value bet that should be around 5-2 not the 4-1 the bookies are offering.
If the polls were reversed I couldn't imagine a price I would touch Biden at. Certainly have to be more than 4-1!
Well to look at it the other way,
What price would you be prepared to back Trump down to ?
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
The service is already restricted by payment. The license fee. The only thing people are suggesting is that those who don't wish to receive or watch bbc but for example do wish to watch sky 1 don't have to pay and that only those that want bbc content pay for it
Precisely.
I don't get why some people are horrified by the idea of the BBC moving to a subscription model. The BBC already has a subscription model FFS. The problem is everyone who wants to watch anything live is compelled by law to subscribe even if they want to watch other channels.
When the BBC was the sole or primary broadcaster that wasn't an issue. Its not the case anymore now though.
They are horrified because they know not enough would subscribe to keep Gary lineker in the manner to which he has become accustomed
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
The service is already restricted by payment. The license fee. The only thing people are suggesting is that those who don't wish to receive or watch bbc but for example do wish to watch sky 1 don't have to pay and that only those that want bbc content pay for it
Precisely.
I don't get why some people are horrified by the idea of the BBC moving to a subscription model. The BBC already has a subscription model FFS. The problem is everyone who wants to watch anything live is compelled by law to subscribe even if they want to watch other channels.
When the BBC was the sole or primary broadcaster that wasn't an issue. Its not the case anymore now though.
They are horrified because they know not enough would subscribe to keep Gary lineker in the manner to which he has become accustomed
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
The service is already restricted by payment. The license fee. The only thing people are suggesting is that those who don't wish to receive or watch bbc but for example do wish to watch sky 1 don't have to pay and that only those that want bbc content pay for it
Precisely.
I don't get why some people are horrified by the idea of the BBC moving to a subscription model. The BBC already has a subscription model FFS. The problem is everyone who wants to watch anything live is compelled by law to subscribe even if they want to watch other channels.
When the BBC was the sole or primary broadcaster that wasn't an issue. Its not the case anymore now though.
They are horrified because they know not enough would subscribe to keep Gary lineker in the manner to which he has become accustomed
Why are you obsessed with Gary Lineker?
Mentioning him once in about 1200 posts is obsessed with him? You have a strange idea of being obsessed.
Nish Kumar is His ethnicity has nothing to do with that.
I just can't quite put my finger on why right-wing people are targeting Nish Kumar about left-wing comedy over say, Romesh Ranganathan.
It's just a mystery.
Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
I also find Marcus Brigstock an unwatchably smug, unfunny c**t.
I also find Chris Addison an unwatchably smug, unfunny c**t.
Over the years, I have paid a lot of money to see that darling of the left Eddie Izzard. He may politically be a touchstone for all that is decent - and all that will fail when tried - but he did give us the Death Star Canteen.
Good polling for Biden with the exception of Pennysylvania.
For some reason they forgot to mention Arizona where Morning Consult have Biden at +10%.
Based on that, Trump would have to get a swing back of 7% (to gain Minnesota).
Otherwise Biden would still pick up Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and with no losses reach 269 with the probable further pickup of Nebraska District 2 taking him to 270.
269 though still gives Trump the Presidency as the House would vote on state lines and most states have a GOP majority even if the Dems have more representatives overall nationally (the Senate would determine the Vice Presidency).
So Biden needs to pick up the Nebraska 2nd District as well as Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and hold all the 2016 Hillary states to win the EC and become President
Yes, that was my point. The only two polls we've seen from the 2nd district had Biden 11% and 7% ahead in May and June.
Perhaps, though even Romney in 2012 not just Trump in 2016 won the 2nd district, although Obama won it in 2008.
It is possible it could see an Arizona style swing to give Biden the presidency of course yes
A smaller swing is needed than in Arizona. Trump won the 2nd district by only 2% compared to 25% across Nebraska as a whole. (Trump won Arizona by 3.5%.) Demographically it's an Omaha city plus suburbs seat, very unlike the rest of Nebraska and it's well documented that suburbs seem to be trending to the Democrats over the past 4 years.
So in my view a probable not possible pick up if there is even a minimal overall swing to Biden at the national level.
Nish Kumar is His ethnicity has nothing to do with that.
I just can't quite put my finger on why right-wing people are targeting Nish Kumar about left-wing comedy over say, Romesh Ranganathan.
It's just a mystery.
Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
I also find Marcus Brigstock an unwatchably smug, unfunny c**t.
I also find Chris Addison an unwatchably smug, unfunny c**t.
Over the years, I have paid a lot of money to see that darling of the left Eddie Izzard. He may politically be a touchstone for all that is decent - and all that will fail when tried - but he did give us the Death Star Canteen.
Stewart Lee is one of the most right on liberal lefty comedians out there, always extremely funny,
Shame the EU doesn't stretch that far, then it too would be a common fatherland from Brest to Brest.
Ah, my coat.
Such a union would be very unstable. I would expect to see political cleavage.
It was tried before - the length of time it survived was substantially less that the founders much advertised plan.
I make a joke about tits and we jump straight to the Third Reich!
I was actually thinking of the... earlier attempt...
From Yes Minister:
Martin: Yes, it's a NATO award given once every five years: gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels, £100 000. The PM's the front runner this time. It's for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to European unity. Sir Humphrey: Since Napoleon. That is if you don't count Hitler.
Unlike many American pollsters they actually have decent crosstabs to inspect. And everything looks okay up until you get to the Gender Split. They manage to weight the sample so they have 48% women in the LV screen. At every single election since 1980 women have made up a larger proportion of the electorate than men in America. In 2016 the electorate was 55% female.
This is like YouGov's "every young person is going to vote" in it's 2015 polling
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
You are correct, unfortunately by the point I went and checked on my information it was too late to edit. Sweden has moved to a similar system based on income tax and no longer charges a licence fee directly. Greece does the electricity bills thing.
My personal choice would be the Spanish system with the BBC receiving a block grant to keep it ad free or with limited advertising which would allow the niche public service programming to continue, but I'd enhance it by allowing the BBC to more directly profit from it's bigger hits rather than having to keep it's commercial arm at a distance from the actual corporation.
In any event, direct funding through TV licences seem to be on the decline in Europe at least, but no one has gone down the subscription service avenue precisely because it removes the entire point of public service broadcasting.
What is public service broadcasting these days? We are all used to segmentation of online products and the BBC is no different.
My view, long rehearsed on here, is that they should break down the BBC into its component parts and charge separately for each segment.
So they can charge separately (finger in air from £2.99 to £5.99) for the following:
1. News (and regional) 2. Weather (and regional) 3. Sport 4. Children's programming 5. Drama 6. Documentary 7. Science 8. Films 9. Radio 10. Comedy (!) 11. Light Entertainment 12. Daytime 13. Gardening 14. Religious programming
Now of course it's also my contention that before long, people would blow through the £13.125/month of the current licence fee, hence the BBC could introduce an AYCE option (which IMO should be priced well above the current £157.50).
That way the perception would be that funds go to the areas that people were prepared to pay for and the market would be efficient but for the BBC they could of course allocate the money as they wished and in aggregate I bet they would end up either as they were or with more money overall. Especially if they didn't have an AYCE option.
It will be like the old directory enquiries which, once liberalised, resulted in the price of directory enquiries skyrocketing above what was thought to be an extortionate 42p at the time.
I certainly agree with @Philip_Thompson as he explained it that you must pay the BBC licence fee to watch Sky or whatever the conditions were that meant that it must still be paid even if you are not watching the BBC at all.
On the return to the office thing, as I've said before our socially distanced office has around 30% of the desks available for use, which means space for around 20% of the staff nominally based there. Latest feedback is very few people going in. Of those visiting the office, I have no figures on who is taking sandwiches and who is going to Greggs for a steak bake at lunchtime - there isn't a Pret nearby.
Only a fraction of our offices have reopened so far - some more opening this week.
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
You are correct, unfortunately by the point I went and checked on my information it was too late to edit. Sweden has moved to a similar system based on tax too. Greece does the electricity bills thing. My personal choice would be the Spanish system with the BBC receiving a block grant to keep it ad free or with limited advertising which would allow the niche public service programming to continue, but I'd enhance it by allowing the BBC to more directly profit from it's bigger hits rather than having to keep it's commercial arm at arms length.
What's wrong with keeping the existing subscription model but making the subscriptions voluntary?
The drop in income would mean axing services and shows aimed at certain demographics who might rely on it as the only bit of TV they like, or axing shows that can be sold abroad. I know which the BBC would rather do, but the charter requires it to provide those niche services, so you'd end up in a vicious circle of fewer big shows resulting in less revenue from abroad resulting in fewer subscriptions. In summary, it would kill the BBC stone dead. Not immediately, but eventually.
I know quite a few people would like that here or think that if it can't survive this way then it should be gone. It's a fair argument, but that would leave Britain without one of the more powerful tools in projecting its own culture abroad. Britain has always punched above its weight culturally and the BBC is definitely part of that reason.
Nish Kumar is His ethnicity has nothing to do with that.
I just can't quite put my finger on why right-wing people are targeting Nish Kumar about left-wing comedy over say, Romesh Ranganathan.
It's just a mystery.
Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
I also find Marcus Brigstock an unwatchably smug, unfunny c**t.
I also find Chris Addison an unwatchably smug, unfunny c**t.
Over the years, I have paid a lot of money to see that darling of the left Eddie Izzard. He may politically be a touchstone for all that is decent - and all that will fail when tried - but he did give us the Death Star Canteen.
Stewart Lee is one of the most right on liberal lefty comedians out there, always extremely funny,
Lo, something we have in common. Lee is a killer comic.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
I was looking at that earlier. You wouldn't believe it, but Trump's approval rating is currently higher than the majority of his presidency.
He's peaking at the right time.
I do wonder what the Dems are going to do when their guy looks to be on the slide. Mr Market is already there. Let's see if the polls start to follow him.
I was looking at that earlier. You wouldn't believe it, but Trump's approval rating is currently higher than the majority of his presidency.
He's peaking at the right time.
I do wonder what the Dems are going to do when their guy looks to be on the slide. Mr Market is already there. Let's see if the polls start to follow him.
On the slide. Against Donald Trump. Sheesh.....
Both candidates tend to gain support as the election approaches. Biden 8% ahead overall.
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
You are correct, unfortunately by the point I went and checked on my information it was too late to edit. Sweden has moved to a similar system based on income tax and no longer charges a licence fee directly. Greece does the electricity bills thing.
My personal choice would be the Spanish system with the BBC receiving a block grant to keep it ad free or with limited advertising which would allow the niche public service programming to continue, but I'd enhance it by allowing the BBC to more directly profit from it's bigger hits rather than having to keep it's commercial arm at a distance from the actual corporation.
In any event, direct funding through TV licences seem to be on the decline in Europe at least, but no one has gone down the subscription service avenue precisely because it removes the entire point of public service broadcasting.
What is public service broadcasting these days? We are all used to segmentation of online products and the BBC is no different.
My view, long rehearsed on here, is that they should break down the BBC into its component parts and charge separately for each segment.
So they can charge separately (finger in air from £2.99 to £5.99) for the following:
1. News (and regional) 2. Weather (and regional) 3. Sport 4. Children's programming 5. Drama 6. Documentary 7. Science 8. Films 9. Radio 10. Comedy (!) 11. Light Entertainment 12. Daytime 13. Gardening 14. Religious programming
Now of course it's also my contention that before long, people would blow through the £13.125/month of the current licence fee, hence the BBC could introduce an AYCE option (which IMO should be priced well above the current £157.50).
That way the perception would be that funds go to the areas that people were prepared to pay for and the market would be efficient but for the BBC they could of course allocate the money as they wished and in aggregate I bet they would end up either as they were or with more money overall. Especially if they didn't have an AYCE option.
It will be like the old directory enquiries which, once liberalised, resulted in the price of directory enquiries skyrocketing above what was thought to be an extortionate 42p at the time.
I certainly agree with @Philip_Thompson as he explained it that you must pay the BBC licence fee to watch Sky or whatever the conditions were that meant that it must still be paid even if you are not watching the BBC at all.
I think you mistook Phillip his argument was if you are not watch bbc at all you shouldn't need to pay.
And frankly I think if bbc tried charging more than 157 for all you can eat they would see a huge drop in numbers
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
I think you mistook Phillip his argument was if you are not watch bbc at all you shouldn't need to pay.
And frankly I think if bbc tried charging more than 157 for all you can eat they would see a huge drop in numbers
He explained last time that in order to do something or other (I forget what) which was nothing to do with the BBC you still had to pay the licence fee which is simply not right. Edit: ie I don't think he/people should be charged if they are not consuming a BBC product.
As for the 157 I'm not sure - if people pay £5.99 for Netflix and the same again for Amazon, to say nothing of Britbox or Disney plus or Now TV then I think they are in the realms of understanding that £15/month, say, is not a lot but OK then cap it at £157. At least the BBC will know what services to concentrate funding on.
I see a backbencher wants a bill to allow recalls if someone switches parties. Whilst I think they usually should have a by election at that point I don't think it should be obligatory, and if be wary of opening the principal to local Gov, where switching is very common.
When I helped run a UK student union in the 90s, the American students had a strong tendency to get "blitzed", "smashed" etc. Restraint and self control while drinking seemed to be banned. Yes, the UK student (and other countries) would get sloshed, but it seemed to be a mission statement for the Americans.
Probably something to do with no drinking experience at 18.
I dunno about that. Coming from the Continent it's always seemed to be a British thing to get aggressively, shoutily pissed and describe it *afterwards* as really great. I used to live in the sailors' district in Copenhagen when it was a major port and you did see people drunk outside the bars, but generally in an amicable way, singing a bit or laughing. British drinking culture often seems more menacing to me.
My school was basically American, and there was a fair amount of moderate drinking at parties, but the only one who got really seriously drunk (16 cans of lager) was regarded by everyone as an idiot. (He was in fact British - I met him years later, and he'd turned into a very sober travel agent.)
Hmm, I'm talking myself out of generalising at all.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
First, SpaceX livestreamed it so you weren't reliant on blokes in car parks; second, you use the American spelling of licence; third, television licences are common in Europe, not just here and not just for the BBC.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
Seems an odd thing to get so worked up about.
I think it is legal to watch as long as it isn't also being broadcast live 'over the air' on TV somewhere.
So NASA TV is not allowed live as it is also broadcast on Satellite, but a random camera feed might be OK. You can watch anything except iPlayer as a catch up though.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
Seems an odd thing to get so worked up about.
Criminalising people because they don’t want any part in subsidising the salaries of all the bbc luvvies and their insidious propaganda? And simply expecting them to compete with the private sector on their own merits? The license fee is a state sponsored protection racket, it takes a lot of effort to stop them sending the red bolded letters from the debt collection agency they outsource it to.
I see a backbencher wants a bill to allow recalls if someone switches parties. Whilst I think they usually should have a by election at that point I don't think it should be obligatory, and if be wary of opening the principal to local Gov, where switching is very common.
FPTP, you aren't voting for a party you are voting for a person. Also if that person switches parties there should be a recall election.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
First, SpaceX livestreamed it so you weren't reliant on blokes in car parks; second, you use the American spelling of licence; third, television licences are common in Europe, not just here and not just for the BBC.
ETA as it happens, I too do not have a telly.
That was it - to watch live events on any channel (eg sports from Sky) you need to pay the BBC licence fee. That's ridiculous.
Bollocks to whatever everyone else does in Europe. It's not right in today's entertainment environment.
I was looking at that earlier. You wouldn't believe it, but Trump's approval rating is currently higher than the majority of his presidency.
How many sitting presidents have won re-election after having a net approval rating of minus 9.8% or worse just two months before polling day? Answer, none.
Which president's net approval rating has been the least volatile of any in history? Answer, Trump's. (Although, technically, it's a net disapproval rating.)
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
First, SpaceX livestreamed it so you weren't reliant on blokes in car parks; second, you use the American spelling of licence; third, television licences are common in Europe, not just here and not just for the BBC.
ETA as it happens, I too do not have a telly.
That was it - to watch live events on any channel (eg sports from Sky) you need to pay the BBC licence fee. That's ridiculous.
Bollocks to whatever everyone else does in Europe. It's not right in today's entertainment environment.
I have only read a smattering of posts so apologies if this has been covered but I think it is much harder being a right wing comedian. Your politics as a comedian is only relevant if you are being satirical and that tends to be anti-establishment. I think all parties get it in the neck when in Government, but as the comedy is coming from an idealistic stand point it is much easier to be critical from a left wing perspective. I like Geoff Norcott, and Gyles Brandreth, but they are more successful when neutral(ish). As soon as they try and go from the right it comes over as embarrassing.
It is what it is. It is a much much tougher job being a comedian from the right.
Both Alan Coren and Ian Hislop were/are successful by being anti establishment also only.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
Taxes go to public goods.
The BBC is a private organisation that offers product to its subscribers, not a public good.
Comments
https://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/markets/usmarkets/industry.asp?industry=53111
That's more than the combined value of GM, Honda, Toyota, Daimler, Ford, Nissan, all the minnows listed AND Hyundai.
Sure Tesla is going forward, but worth more than all of the above combined ?!
I would much rather it kept on doing exactly what it wanted, and I sanctioned it by withdrawing my custom if I wanted.
I then might re-introduce my custom if I felt it provided balanced programming.
That's what I did with Sky and BT. As soon as Carlos Kickaball took to the knee I was out of there.
So Biden needs to pick up the Nebraska 2nd District as well as Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and hold all the 2016 Hillary states to win the EC and become President
My God he is so vain.
He is almost odds against. The numbers who turned up to his Pennsylvania speech were desultory. A speech that once again showed the poor man's issues. Goodness knows what will happen when he has to debate.
Honestly what is going on here, its a total farce.
Ah, my coat.
There's a reason Pelosi suggested no debates.....
Interesting also Trump in NH
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
Politicians actually rarely outright lie, it's too risky to be worth it (unless you're Trump). That's why they obfuscate, generalise or cherry pick.
They mislead a lot more than lie.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300526669409722369?s=20
As I recall the 2016 polls weren't far off the pv but fcuked up on the state polIing, whereas the betting market (as an indicator) took a dump.
Because a punk stapled it to the chicken.
They completely don't.
There are plenty of people saying these polls are wrong with hard cash.
It is possible it could see an Arizona style swing to give Biden the presidency of course yes
I thought that foaming dog fever people were against the MSM/Murdoch and consider everything that Tory organisations like The Times and YouGuv to be Tory propaganda?
His ethnicity has nothing to do with that.
It's just a mystery.
Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
What price would you be prepared to back Trump down to ?
I don't get why some people are horrified by the idea of the BBC moving to a subscription model. The BBC already has a subscription model FFS. The problem is everyone who wants to watch anything live is compelled by law to subscribe even if they want to watch other channels.
When the BBC was the sole or primary broadcaster that wasn't an issue. Its not the case anymore now though.
My personal choice would be the Spanish system with the BBC receiving a block grant to keep it ad free or with limited advertising which would allow the niche public service programming to continue, but I'd enhance it by allowing the BBC to more directly profit from it's bigger hits rather than having to keep it's commercial arm at a distance from the actual corporation.
In any event, direct funding through TV licences seem to be on the decline in Europe at least, but no one has gone down the subscription service avenue precisely because it removes the entire point of public service broadcasting.
"The BLM riots are scaring ordinary decent Americans. They want to see a tough, no nonsense response and it's my old mucker Donald not sleepy Joe Biden who gets this. If things carry on as they are it will be 4 more years of President Trump."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'
Flippin' heck, I probably would.
I also find Chris Addison an unwatchably smug, unfunny c**t.
Over the years, I have paid a lot of money to see that darling of the left Eddie Izzard. He may politically be a touchstone for all that is decent - and all that will fail when tried - but he did give us the Death Star Canteen.
So in my view a probable not possible pick up if there is even a minimal overall swing to Biden at the national level.
Headline - 9
7 Days - 5
Yesterday - 1
Oh and the SPIN spreads are out. I have bought Biden EC supremacy @ 28.5 for a chunky (for me) unit stake. Well into 4 digits P/L territory.
Oooo.
From Yes Minister:
Martin: Yes, it's a NATO award given once every five years: gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels, £100 000. The PM's the front runner this time. It's for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to European unity.
Sir Humphrey: Since Napoleon. That is if you don't count Hitler.
Here's Leger, a Canadian outfit: https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Legers-Weekly-Survey-august-31st-2020.pdf a perfecrtly run of the mill 8 point Biden lead.
Unlike many American pollsters they actually have decent crosstabs to inspect. And everything looks okay up until you get to the Gender Split. They manage to weight the sample so they have 48% women in the LV screen. At every single election since 1980 women have made up a larger proportion of the electorate than men in America. In 2016 the electorate was 55% female.
This is like YouGov's "every young person is going to vote" in it's 2015 polling
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
My view, long rehearsed on here, is that they should break down the BBC into its component parts and charge separately for each segment.
So they can charge separately (finger in air from £2.99 to £5.99) for the following:
1. News (and regional)
2. Weather (and regional)
3. Sport
4. Children's programming
5. Drama
6. Documentary
7. Science
8. Films
9. Radio
10. Comedy (!)
11. Light Entertainment
12. Daytime
13. Gardening
14. Religious programming
Now of course it's also my contention that before long, people would blow through the £13.125/month of the current licence fee, hence the BBC could introduce an AYCE option (which IMO should be priced well above the current £157.50).
That way the perception would be that funds go to the areas that people were prepared to pay for and the market would be efficient but for the BBC they could of course allocate the money as they wished and in aggregate I bet they would end up either as they were or with more money overall. Especially if they didn't have an AYCE option.
It will be like the old directory enquiries which, once liberalised, resulted in the price of directory enquiries skyrocketing above what was thought to be an extortionate 42p at the time.
I certainly agree with @Philip_Thompson as he explained it that you must pay the BBC licence fee to watch Sky or whatever the conditions were that meant that it must still be paid even if you are not watching the BBC at all.
Only a fraction of our offices have reopened so far - some more opening this week.
I know quite a few people would like that here or think that if it can't survive this way then it should be gone. It's a fair argument, but that would leave Britain without one of the more powerful tools in projecting its own culture abroad. Britain has always punched above its weight culturally and the BBC is definitely part of that reason.
Hence the popular 1940 song after the fall of France: "Hitler has only got one Brest". Or was it "ball"?
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
I do wonder what the Dems are going to do when their guy looks to be on the slide. Mr Market is already there. Let's see if the polls start to follow him.
On the slide. Against Donald Trump. Sheesh.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball
Biden 8% ahead overall.
And frankly I think if bbc tried charging more than 157 for all you can eat they would see a huge drop in numbers
As for the 157 I'm not sure - if people pay £5.99 for Netflix and the same again for Amazon, to say nothing of Britbox or Disney plus or Now TV then I think they are in the realms of understanding that £15/month, say, is not a lot but OK then cap it at £157. At least the BBC will know what services to concentrate funding on.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
My school was basically American, and there was a fair amount of moderate drinking at parties, but the only one who got really seriously drunk (16 cans of lager) was regarded by everyone as an idiot. (He was in fact British - I met him years later, and he'd turned into a very sober travel agent.)
Hmm, I'm talking myself out of generalising at all.
ETA as it happens, I too do not have a telly.
So NASA TV is not allowed live as it is also broadcast on Satellite, but a random camera feed might be OK. You can watch anything except iPlayer as a catch up though.
It is a total nonsense and it has to be changed.
Two thoughts there.
Bollocks to whatever everyone else does in Europe. It's not right in today's entertainment environment.
Which president's net approval rating has been the least volatile of any in history? Answer, Trump's. (Although, technically, it's a net disapproval rating.)
Get over yourself.
It is what it is. It is a much much tougher job being a comedian from the right.
Both Alan Coren and Ian Hislop were/are successful by being anti establishment also only.
The BBC is a private organisation that offers product to its subscribers, not a public good.