The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
But you'd like it to be.
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
Bottas at 5.6 (BfEx) seems excellent value to win the Grand Prix. Alternatively lay Lewis at 1.64. He starts on the ‘wrong’ strategy with soft tyres, after a difficult qualifying session yesterday.
Bottas just doesn't have the bottle.
Hamilton is likely to be overtaken by the first corner (due to the benefits drag offers on this circuit). After that he also has the disadvantage of being on the wrong (soft) tyre.
Mind you I still would be more tempted by Max than Bottas.
Oliver Dowding on Marr clearly telling the Premier League they need to support football
I understand the cost is £250 million so the average cost per Premier League club is £12.5 million
That figure is less than some individual Premier League players earn per year
HMG is right to tell the Premier League to look after their own
Oliver was so pleased earlier in the year at the prospect of a return to Glyndebourne. So with today's footballing message, he is down with the kids and the Red Wall after all.
By the way Premier League Clubs are businesses. A morally crusading government has no business telling them what to do.
I agree but not when they are asking it for money
Who says they are?
Dowding was clearly indicating they were seeking cash aid due to loss of fans for most of this season
My understanding was that the Premier League are saying that they won't support the lower levels unless they are given clear assurances on the return of fans to their own stadia (with guidance as to how this will be able to operate 'safely' (that won't be altered at a future date once investment has been made to allow it to happen), backed up by financial commitments if those assurances are then rowed back upon.
In general TV money means the PL can stand on its own two feet. The lower leagues need fans, or help.
I cannot see fans at matches for months
Fans are at matches much further down the pyramid. When it was announced how many our local club were allowed there was a rather unfair pub discussion about where the extras were going to be found!
I wouldn't dispute anything they all say, but GOP set the precedent by holding back Obama's nominee. It was unconstitutional!
Right. So the Republicans were in the wrong back then and now the Democrats are in the wrong now.
So your solution is to give the GOP what they want under every circumstance?
The solution is to uphold the constitution and allow the president to nominate a candidate for the supreme court.
So you will have no objection when the Dems increase the size of the court and add another 5 judges next session then if they win? It will be fully constitutional.
Well they'll have to get it past the supreme court first.
But either way it's perfectly normal for the president to nominate for the supreme court and the opposition is purely because it is Trump doing it.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
As a leftie I always thought the BBC was a bit to the right in news and serious comment, but it could be irreverent, so, one way and another, fair enough. However in the Brexit era (yes I know we've not quite finished it) it leant far too far over towards the UKIP position. The BBC East, the one I watch, was almost Brexit Central.
What's amazing is that while BBC News UK has become BBC Views, the outward facing BBC World News (not intended for domestic consumption) has remained quite neutral and authoritative. The BBC know how to do news, they just seem to have abandoned it in this country for the sake of allowing cranks of all political persuasions onto TV.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
They aren't going move the "other way". There is going to be no retreat from progressive positions on discrimination, climate change, marriage equality, etc.
What they'll do is shift the BBC's editorial tone to one of overt support for the tories and mawkish nationalism such as pretending the British Empire wasn't a vast intercontinental engine of rapacious exploitation and ruthless suppression.
Bottas at 5.6 (BfEx) seems excellent value to win the Grand Prix. Alternatively lay Lewis at 1.64. He starts on the ‘wrong’ strategy with soft tyres, after a difficult qualifying session yesterday.
Bottas just doesn't have the bottle.
Lewis is likely to have to pass both Bottas and Verstappen on the track to win, so on that basis 9/2 looks like good value. VB has a better chance today than he has for a while.
Regarding football. Maybe there are simply too many full time clubs? Used to be it was just the 92. In recent years this has crept up so most of the National League, and quite a lot below that level are pros. No other comparable country has so many. Maybe it is fundamentally unsustainable, and this is an opportunity for a 're think? Having a squad of 20 on full time wages playing in front of a few hundred bankrolled by a well off local business does not make much sense.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
As a leftie I always thought the BBC was a bit to the right in news and serious comment, but it could be irreverent, so, one way and another, fair enough. However in the Brexit era (yes I know we've not quite finished it) it leant far too far over towards the UKIP position. The BBC East, the one I watch, was almost Brexit Central.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
As a leftie I always thought the BBC was a bit to the right in news and serious comment, but it could be irreverent, so, one way and another, fair enough. However in the Brexit era (yes I know we've not quite finished it) it leant far too far over towards the UKIP position. The BBC East, the one I watch, was almost Brexit Central.
What's amazing is that while BBC News UK has become BBC Views, the outward facing BBC World News (not intended for domestic consumption) has remained quite neutral and authoritative. The BBC know how to do news, they just seem to have abandoned it in this country for the sake of allowing cranks of all political persuasions onto TV.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
They aren't going move the "other way". There is going to be no retreat from progressive positions on discrimination, climate change, marriage equality, etc.
What they'll do is shift the BBC's editorial tone to one of overt support for the tories and mawkish nationalism such as pretending the British Empire wasn't a vast intercontinental engine of rapacious exploitation and ruthless suppression.
Lol this is the sort of tripe they need to move away from.
Bottas at 5.6 (BfEx) seems excellent value to win the Grand Prix. Alternatively lay Lewis at 1.64. He starts on the ‘wrong’ strategy with soft tyres, after a difficult qualifying session yesterday.
Bottas just doesn't have the bottle.
Or the (relative) ability. People are latching on to the reasons why he might win - but i think the disadvantages of Hamilton's position are being grossly exaggerated (every other car from 4 to 10 will be on the soft tyre) and if anyone can find away to undermine the advantage of the first lap slipstream it will be him.
Just watching the local politics show on BBC One and they've gone for vox pops from formerly local expats. The expats in France and Spain were whinging about how much safer they are in those countries and that Britain's lockdown is "lazy".
Both missing the point that both of their own countries opened up way too much over the summer and that they still have fewer restrictions, while their case numbers are still well above the UK even though we're chasing.
I'm all for the public getting a say on TV, but I do wish the BBC wouldn't air views that include nonsense that flies in the face of the figures.
They should have interviewed Brits in Italy or Germany, where new case numbers are now four times lower than in the UK
TBF tho both F and S have plenty of areas that are still relatively unaffected
Bottas at 5.6 (BfEx) seems excellent value to win the Grand Prix. Alternatively lay Lewis at 1.64. He starts on the ‘wrong’ strategy with soft tyres, after a difficult qualifying session yesterday.
Bottas just doesn't have the bottle.
Lewis is likely to have to pass both Bottas and Verstappen on the track to win, so on that basis 9/2 looks like good value. VB has a better chance today than he has for a while.
Max stands in the way and Bottas won't be able to handle him. Agree that Lewis looks too short, but Bottas is priced about right. In S2 the Merc will struggle to stay behind the RB in dirty air and Bottas isn't known for daring overtakes or being the last of the late brakers to chance a DRS overtake from too far back.
I wouldn't dispute anything they all say, but GOP set the precedent by holding back Obama's nominee. It was unconstitutional!
Right. So the Republicans were in the wrong back then and now the Democrats are in the wrong now.
So your solution is to give the GOP what they want under every circumstance?
The solution is to uphold the constitution and allow the president to nominate a candidate for the supreme court.
So you will have no objection when the Dems increase the size of the court and add another 5 judges next session then if they win? It will be fully constitutional.
Well they'll have to get it past the supreme court first.
But either way it's perfectly normal for the president to nominate for the supreme court and the opposition is purely because it is Trump doing it.
No, setting the number of judges in the Supreme Court is determined by Congress. There would be no standing to bring a case to stop it.
Your second paragraph is such confused nonsense I can't begin to approach it.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
But you'd like it to be.
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
That's the problem right there, it's not a national broadcaster anymore.
It caters to just a very limited selection of liberal left leaning views. Of course those who share those views are more than happy for some of the poorest in society to be criminalised and imprisoned for failing to pay for it whether they watch it or not.
I wouldn't dispute anything they all say, but GOP set the precedent by holding back Obama's nominee. It was unconstitutional!
Right. So the Republicans were in the wrong back then and now the Democrats are in the wrong now.
So your solution is to give the GOP what they want under every circumstance?
The solution is to uphold the constitution and allow the president to nominate a candidate for the supreme court.
So you will have no objection when the Dems increase the size of the court and add another 5 judges next session then if they win? It will be fully constitutional.
Well they'll have to get it past the supreme court first.
But either way it's perfectly normal for the president to nominate for the supreme court and the opposition is purely because it is Trump doing it.
No, setting the number of judges in the Supreme Court is determined by Congress. There would be no standing to bring a case to stop it.
Your second paragraph is such confused nonsense I can't begin to approach it.
Yes I'm sure you were up in arms when Obama tried the exact same thing in 2016.
Just watching the local politics show on BBC One and they've gone for vox pops from formerly local expats. The expats in France and Spain were whinging about how much safer they are in those countries and that Britain's lockdown is "lazy".
Both missing the point that both of their own countries opened up way too much over the summer and that they still have fewer restrictions, while their case numbers are still well above the UK even though we're chasing.
I'm all for the public getting a say on TV, but I do wish the BBC wouldn't air views that include nonsense that flies in the face of the figures.
They should have interviewed Brits in Italy or Germany, where new case numbers are now four times lower than in the UK
"four times lower than .." what's wrong with just saying "one quarter of"?
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
As a leftie I always thought the BBC was a bit to the right in news and serious comment, but it could be irreverent, so, one way and another, fair enough. However in the Brexit era (yes I know we've not quite finished it) it leant far too far over towards the UKIP position. The BBC East, the one I watch, was almost Brexit Central.
Whereas BBC London definitely tends left imo
Could, of course, be that they are responding to the voting tendencies of the area. Living in an area where 66% of the votes went to Priti Patel I sometimes feel somewhat of an endangered species!
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
But you'd like it to be.
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
That's the problem right there, it's not a national broadcaster anymore.
It caters to just a very limited selection of liberal left leaning views. Of course those who share those views are more than happy for some of the poorest in society to be criminalised and imprisoned for failing to pay for it whether they watch it or not.
Personally I stopped watching it because of this. Every week the "liberal left leaning views" of Nigel Farage on QT. And a 'limited selection" of Mail and Sun journalists on the paper review. Made me sick. And don't get me started on that Marxist Andrew Neill.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
But you'd like it to be.
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
That's the problem right there, it's not a national broadcaster anymore.
It caters to just a very limited selection of liberal left leaning views. Of course those who share those views are more than happy for some of the poorest in society to be criminalised and imprisoned for failing to pay for it whether they watch it or not.
Personally I stopped watching it because of this. Every week the "liberal left leaning views" of Nigel Farage on QT. And a 'limited selection" of Mail and Sun journalists on the paper review. Made me sick.
10 minutes of a right winger on a political show a couple of times a week doesn't make up for 24/7 liberal left content on all their platforms. Arguing that it does is utterly absurd.
Radio 4 is almost complete woke nonsense now.
If the BBC was so balanced then why does the left seem to love it and the right constantly complain about its output?
I wouldn't dispute anything they all say, but GOP set the precedent by holding back Obama's nominee. It was unconstitutional!
Right. So the Republicans were in the wrong back then and now the Democrats are in the wrong now.
So your solution is to give the GOP what they want under every circumstance?
The solution is to uphold the constitution and allow the president to nominate a candidate for the supreme court.
So you will have no objection when the Dems increase the size of the court and add another 5 judges next session then if they win? It will be fully constitutional.
Well they'll have to get it past the supreme court first.
But either way it's perfectly normal for the president to nominate for the supreme court and the opposition is purely because it is Trump doing it.
No, setting the number of judges in the Supreme Court is determined by Congress. There would be no standing to bring a case to stop it.
Your second paragraph is such confused nonsense I can't begin to approach it.
Yes I'm sure you were up in arms when Obama tried the exact same thing in 2016.
I have literally no idea what your argument is at this point.
Oliver Dowding on Marr clearly telling the Premier League they need to support football
I understand the cost is £250 million so the average cost per Premier League club is £12.5 million
That figure is less than some individual Premier League players earn per year
HMG is right to tell the Premier League to look after their own
Oliver was so pleased earlier in the year at the prospect of a return to Glyndebourne. So with today's footballing message, he is down with the kids and the Red Wall after all.
By the way Premier League Clubs are businesses. A morally crusading government has no business telling them what to do.
I agree but not when they are asking it for money
Who says they are?
Dowding was clearly indicating they were seeking cash aid due to loss of fans for most of this season
My understanding was that the Premier League are saying that they won't support the lower levels unless they are given clear assurances on the return of fans to their own stadia (with guidance as to how this will be able to operate 'safely' (that won't be altered at a future date once investment has been made to allow it to happen), backed up by financial commitments if those assurances are then rowed back upon.
In general TV money means the PL can stand on its own two feet. The lower leagues need fans, or help.
I cannot see fans at matches for months
Fans are at matches much further down the pyramid. When it was announced how many our local club were allowed there was a rather unfair pub discussion about where the extras were going to be found!
That went out the window with the new announcements, they will need to go to payed for streaming to survive.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
But you'd like it to be.
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
That's the problem right there, it's not a national broadcaster anymore.
It caters to just a very limited selection of liberal left leaning views. Of course those who share those views are more than happy for some of the poorest in society to be criminalised and imprisoned for failing to pay for it whether they watch it or not.
Personally I stopped watching it because of this. Every week the "liberal left leaning views" of Nigel Farage on QT. And a 'limited selection" of Mail and Sun journalists on the paper review. Made me sick.
10 minutes of a right winger on a political show a couple of times a week doesn't make up for 24/7 liberal left content on all their platforms. Arguing that it does is utterly absurd.
Radio 4 is almost complete woke nonsense now.
If the BBC was so balanced then why does the left seem to love it and the right constantly complain about its output?
To you everything is left wing apart from the bollocks you spout
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
But you'd like it to be.
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
That's the problem right there, it's not a national broadcaster anymore.
It caters to just a very limited selection of liberal left leaning views. Of course those who share those views are more than happy for some of the poorest in society to be criminalised and imprisoned for failing to pay for it whether they watch it or not.
Personally I stopped watching it because of this. Every week the "liberal left leaning views" of Nigel Farage on QT. And a 'limited selection" of Mail and Sun journalists on the paper review. Made me sick.
10 minutes of a right winger on a political show a couple of times a week doesn't make up for 24/7 liberal left content on all their platforms. Arguing that it does is utterly absurd.
Radio 4 is almost complete woke nonsense now.
If the BBC was so balanced then why does the left seem to love it and the right constantly complain about its output?
The left doesn't love it. As I said I stopped watching it.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
But you'd like it to be.
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
It's already limited to those who pay for it, unless you break the law or are obsessed with radio instead of talking about TV. There is no universality already.
The only distinction is that currently people who want to watch OTHER TV live have to pay the licence fee too. Make it voluntary and nothing will change except removing that anomaly.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
They aren't going move the "other way". There is going to be no retreat from progressive positions on discrimination, climate change, marriage equality, etc.
What they'll do is shift the BBC's editorial tone to one of overt support for the tories and mawkish nationalism such as pretending the British Empire wasn't a vast intercontinental engine of rapacious exploitation and ruthless suppression.
What's really worrying is that you actually believe nonsense like that.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
As a leftie I always thought the BBC was a bit to the right in news and serious comment, but it could be irreverent, so, one way and another, fair enough. However in the Brexit era (yes I know we've not quite finished it) it leant far too far over towards the UKIP position. The BBC East, the one I watch, was almost Brexit Central.
Just watching the local politics show on BBC One and they've gone for vox pops from formerly local expats. The expats in France and Spain were whinging about how much safer they are in those countries and that Britain's lockdown is "lazy".
Both missing the point that both of their own countries opened up way too much over the summer and that they still have fewer restrictions, while their case numbers are still well above the UK even though we're chasing.
I'm all for the public getting a say on TV, but I do wish the BBC wouldn't air views that include nonsense that flies in the face of the figures.
They should have interviewed Brits in Italy or Germany, where new case numbers are now four times lower than in the UK
TBF tho both F and S have plenty of areas that are still relatively unaffected
Quite right but the authorities only really react to rates of several hundred per 100,000 we are running at 112/100,000 in Valencia with low admissions and low mortality rates and apart from the ‘rules’ it’s almost normal.
Regarding football. Maybe there are simply too many full time clubs? Used to be it was just the 92. In recent years this has crept up so most of the National League, and quite a lot below that level are pros. No other comparable country has so many. Maybe it is fundamentally unsustainable, and this is an opportunity for a 're think? Having a squad of 20 on full time wages playing in front of a few hundred bankrolled by a well off local business does not make much sense.
There simply aren't enough punters to sustain all these clubs - and that's been the case for a while. ISTR commentary about Blackburn Rovers vs Inter Milan in the Champions League where Ewood Park was at best half full. But Ewood Park had been expanded so that it could fit one-third of the entire town into it.
Absurd. When you understand the nature of the geography. To its east is Burnley. With a football club. To its west is Accrington. With a football club. And Preston. With a football club. To its south is Bolton. With a football club. With Wigan. Bury. Rochdale. All with football clubs. And of course Manchester beyond.
How many football clubs can one area sustain? Blackburn Rovers FC was always unlikely to attract support outside of Blackburn itself. And yet a bit of success and they think they need a huuuuuge stadium.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
This morning we've had posts on here that the prospective appointment of Dacre and Moore represents the end of Britain, the end of democracy, and the coming of the Third Reich.
He's annoyed (perfectly and brilliantly) all the right people with the prospective BBC Chairman and Ofcom Chair appointments, even though the applications for both haven't formally opened yet.
He'll consider that a job very well done, and it also has the benefit of shoring up his own political position in Government.
Regarding football. Maybe there are simply too many full time clubs? Used to be it was just the 92. In recent years this has crept up so most of the National League, and quite a lot below that level are pros. No other comparable country has so many. Maybe it is fundamentally unsustainable, and this is an opportunity for a 're think? Having a squad of 20 on full time wages playing in front of a few hundred bankrolled by a well off local business does not make much sense.
There simply aren't enough punters to sustain all these clubs - and that's been the case for a while. ISTR commentary about Blackburn Rovers vs Inter Milan in the Champions League where Ewood Park was at best half full. But Ewood Park had been expanded so that it could fit one-third of the entire town into it.
Absurd. When you understand the nature of the geography. To its east is Burnley. With a football club. To its west is Accrington. With a football club. And Preston. With a football club. To its south is Bolton. With a football club. With Wigan. Bury. Rochdale. All with football clubs. And of course Manchester beyond.
How many football clubs can one area sustain? Blackburn Rovers FC was always unlikely to attract support outside of Blackburn itself. And yet a bit of success and they think they need a huuuuuge stadium.
National league 100% full time, limited in N & S the part time clubs could mothball and emerge after this is over, the ones with ongoing player contracts can’t. If DCMS doesn’t come through or the rich clubs fail to help out then we will lose a lot of clubs in areas mainly in Tory held towns.
Regarding football. Maybe there are simply too many full time clubs? Used to be it was just the 92. In recent years this has crept up so most of the National League, and quite a lot below that level are pros. No other comparable country has so many. Maybe it is fundamentally unsustainable, and this is an opportunity for a 're think? Having a squad of 20 on full time wages playing in front of a few hundred bankrolled by a well off local business does not make much sense.
There simply aren't enough punters to sustain all these clubs - and that's been the case for a while. ISTR commentary about Blackburn Rovers vs Inter Milan in the Champions League where Ewood Park was at best half full. But Ewood Park had been expanded so that it could fit one-third of the entire town into it.
Absurd. When you understand the nature of the geography. To its east is Burnley. With a football club. To its west is Accrington. With a football club. And Preston. With a football club. To its south is Bolton. With a football club. With Wigan. Bury. Rochdale. All with football clubs. And of course Manchester beyond.
How many football clubs can one area sustain? Blackburn Rovers FC was always unlikely to attract support outside of Blackburn itself. And yet a bit of success and they think they need a huuuuuge stadium.
The North East seems to have the right set up for viability. Everyone in the surrounding counties of Northumberland and Durham seem to support Newcastle or Sunderland (or if you're in the south of the region, sometimes Middlesbrough as my Mum and brothers do, but the less said about that the better).
There's only a couple of lesser teams like Hartlepool and Darlington that don't draw fans from a wider area, and Darlington learned the lesson of opening a 25,000 seater stadium for a town of 100,000, but otherwise there's a pool of roughly 2 million supporters for three teams.
I sometimes wonder if those on the right who perceive "left wing bias" in the BBC, and claim to be genuine in their belief that it could operate successfully on a subscription or advertising model, would actually welcome an outcome where this happened and it consequently became largely shorn of its responsibilities for balanced broadcasting.
The left has run almost the entire establishment for decades. Now finally a few right wingers are getting put in positions of power the toys are leaving the pram.
Thumbs up for Cummings from me if it is his doing.
What withering nonsense. In my 58 years I have known just 23 years of Labour Governments. Since I have had a vote at the age of eighteen, some 40 years, I have experienced just 13 years of non-Conservative led government.
I'm not talking about government I'm talking about the civil service, the BBC, Channel 4, legal profession etc. etc.
Now is the first time a Tory government has dared to try to shift the balance the other way in a long time.
The Tory Govt is "shifting the balance" by appointing people to head institutions that are pledged to destroy them? Hardly surprising they haven't tried that before... They have certainly appoint Tories to head up the BBC and the like, but nothing so blatant as this.
The BBC isn't going to be destroyed.
What ludicrous hyperbole.
This morning we've had posts on here that the prospective appointment of Dacre and Moore represents the end of Britain, the end of democracy, and the coming of the Third Reich.
And the Left wonders why they keep losing.
But I thought Lefties have been in charge of Britain for the last 50 years?
Regarding football. Maybe there are simply too many full time clubs? Used to be it was just the 92. In recent years this has crept up so most of the National League, and quite a lot below that level are pros. No other comparable country has so many. Maybe it is fundamentally unsustainable, and this is an opportunity for a 're think? Having a squad of 20 on full time wages playing in front of a few hundred bankrolled by a well off local business does not make much sense.
There simply aren't enough punters to sustain all these clubs - and that's been the case for a while. ISTR commentary about Blackburn Rovers vs Inter Milan in the Champions League where Ewood Park was at best half full. But Ewood Park had been expanded so that it could fit one-third of the entire town into it.
Absurd. When you understand the nature of the geography. To its east is Burnley. With a football club. To its west is Accrington. With a football club. And Preston. With a football club. To its south is Bolton. With a football club. With Wigan. Bury. Rochdale. All with football clubs. And of course Manchester beyond.
How many football clubs can one area sustain? Blackburn Rovers FC was always unlikely to attract support outside of Blackburn itself. And yet a bit of success and they think they need a huuuuuge stadium.
The North East seems to have the right set up for viability. Everyone in the surrounding counties of Northumberland and Durham seem to support Newcastle or Sunderland (or if you're in the south of the region, sometimes Middlesbrough as my Mum and brothers do, but the less said about that the better).
There's only a couple of lesser teams like Hartlepool and Darlington that don't draw fans from a wider area, and Darlington learned the lesson of opening a 25,000 seater stadium for a town of 100,000, but otherwise there's a pool of roughly 2 million supporters for three teams.
I sometimes wonder if those on the right who perceive "left wing bias" in the BBC, and claim to be genuine in their belief that it could operate successfully on a subscription or advertising model, would actually welcome an outcome where this happened and it consequently became largely shorn of its responsibilities for balanced broadcasting.
I’ve always found it amazing that left-wingers are so eager to stand up for a system that takes up 10% of all magistrates’ court cases, giving criminal records and in many cases imprisoning some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
Personally, I’d leave it up to the BBC to decide how to fund themselves, and I’d maintain a small budget from DCMS to commission public service broadcasting that wouldn’t be produced elsewhere.
The practical problem for the BBC is that there is no way to exclude non-licence-payers from watching or hearing without legal sanctions. Broadcasting is a pure public good in that sense. I think it provides a valuable service, and I am sure many people agree with that. I think an acceptable solution would be to fund it from general taxation rather than the hypothecated poll tax that is the current licence fee, and that its mission should revert to Reithian precepts and not to chase ratings. I believe that if Charles Moore were appointed chairman then that is the direction it would move in.
I think the real reason, when you strip away all the sturm und drang around the BBC from the right wing, the nub of the issue when you really get down to it, is the fact that right wingers don’t like paying for something every penny of which doesn’t directly benefit them. It’s why they don’t like the NHS either.
‘Why should I pay my TV licence when the BBC produces content the entirety of which I don’t agree with/want to watch? Why should I pay into the NHS when it treats plebs who smoke and drink?’
That individualism is the driver of many good things in society, but it can’t recognise when some collectivism, when we all pay into a collective pot, is a Good Thing.
Yes, the BBC can be a bit lefty. But it’s a creative industry, crammed with creative types who don’t temperamentally tend to be right leaning. But on the positive side the BBC doesn’t just make EastEnders and the One Show. It creates so much great content, visually and aurally, that benefits society. It helps educate our children, it nourishes the arts that bring in money for the UK PLC, stuff that is hard to quantify but is of great benefit to us as a society.
The NHS, despite its faults, provides a healthy working population, the benefits of which are obvious.
I guess that’s a long winded way of saying that cliche that Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
I think the real reason, when you strip away all the sturm und drang around the BBC from the right wing, the nub of the issue when you really get down to it, is the fact that right wingers don’t like paying for something every penny of which doesn’t directly benefit them. It’s why they don’t like the NHS either.
‘Why should I pay my TV licence when the BBC produces content the entirety of which I don’t agree with/want to watch? Why should I pay into the NHS when it treats plebs who smoke and drink?’
That individualism is the driver of many good things in society, but it can’t recognise when some collectivism, when we all pay into a collective pot, is a Good Thing.
Yes, the BBC can be a bit lefty. But it’s a creative industry, crammed with creative types who don’t temperamentally tend to be right leaning. But on the positive side the BBC doesn’t just make EastEnders and the One Show. It creates so much great content, visually and aurally, that benefits society. It helps educate our children, it nourishes the arts that bring in money for the UK PLC, stuff that is hard to quantify but is of great benefit to us as a society.
The NHS, despite its faults, provides a healthy working population, the benefits of which are obvious.
I guess that’s a long winded way of saying that cliche that Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
What that is really all about is the well-heeled left sponging on the proletariat. The real victims of the licence fee scam are the millions who pay it solely as a gateway to be allowed to watch Sky Sport. It just doesn't get more unfair than that. Just chavs, you will say, who prolly vote Labour anyway so sod 'em. If you want poncey artistic content to educate your children with, put your hand in your pocket, you tight sod, and stop scrounging off the poor.
The Minister of Health of Catalonia, Alba Verges, has warned that this Christmas only family gatherings of six people will be allowed in the region, both in private and public spaces after analyzing the projections of the pandemic for the month of December. In addition, she adds that there will be no parades of kings in the streets in the traditional way.
The Local Police of Granada has evicted a party to celebrate a baptism and a communion in which 270 people gathered without a mask or safety distance, an event organized in a place without a license that had attractions for children and a stage for musicians without respect health measures against coronavirus. As reported to Efe by the Councilor for Security of Granada, César Díaz, the police intervention took place in a farmhouse known as "Carrijo", located in the surroundings of La Vega
Comments
Sorry "limited to those only who want it and are prepared to pay for it" - ie. no longer a national broadcaster, but just one among many.
No you don't want to destroy it, you don't mind the name staying. You just don't want it to have the breadth and universality of coverage that it currently enjoys.
Mind you I still would be more tempted by Max than Bottas.
But either way it's perfectly normal for the president to nominate for the supreme court and the opposition is purely because it is Trump doing it.
What they'll do is shift the BBC's editorial tone to one of overt support for the tories and mawkish nationalism such as pretending the British Empire wasn't a vast intercontinental engine of rapacious exploitation and ruthless suppression.
Maybe there are simply too many full time clubs?
Used to be it was just the 92. In recent years this has crept up so most of the National League, and quite a lot below that level are pros.
No other comparable country has so many. Maybe it is fundamentally unsustainable, and this is an opportunity for a 're think?
Having a squad of 20 on full time wages playing in front of a few hundred bankrolled by a well off local business does not make much sense.
TBF tho both F and S have plenty of areas that are still relatively unaffected
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
Your second paragraph is such confused nonsense I can't begin to approach it.
It caters to just a very limited selection of liberal left leaning views. Of course those who share those views are more than happy for some of the poorest in society to be criminalised and imprisoned for failing to pay for it whether they watch it or not.
what's wrong with just saying "one quarter of"?
edit: or did you mean "one fifth of"?
Every week the "liberal left leaning views" of Nigel Farage on QT.
And a 'limited selection" of Mail and Sun journalists on the paper review.
Made me sick.
And don't get me started on that Marxist Andrew Neill.
Radio 4 is almost complete woke nonsense now.
If the BBC was so balanced then why does the left seem to love it and the right constantly complain about its output?
The only distinction is that currently people who want to watch OTHER TV live have to pay the licence fee too. Make it voluntary and nothing will change except removing that anomaly.
Absurd. When you understand the nature of the geography. To its east is Burnley. With a football club. To its west is Accrington. With a football club. And Preston. With a football club. To its south is Bolton. With a football club. With Wigan. Bury. Rochdale. All with football clubs. And of course Manchester beyond.
How many football clubs can one area sustain? Blackburn Rovers FC was always unlikely to attract support outside of Blackburn itself. And yet a bit of success and they think they need a huuuuuge stadium.
And the Left wonders why they keep losing.
He's annoyed (perfectly and brilliantly) all the right people with the prospective BBC Chairman and Ofcom Chair appointments, even though the applications for both haven't formally opened yet.
He'll consider that a job very well done, and it also has the benefit of shoring up his own political position in Government.
Well done. You've played right into his hands.
There's only a couple of lesser teams like Hartlepool and Darlington that don't draw fans from a wider area, and Darlington learned the lesson of opening a 25,000 seater stadium for a town of 100,000, but otherwise there's a pool of roughly 2 million supporters for three teams.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/us/politics/poll-supreme-court-trump-biden.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Personally, I’d leave it up to the BBC to decide how to fund themselves, and I’d maintain a small budget from DCMS to commission public service broadcasting that wouldn’t be produced elsewhere.
"This is basically a Ukip for culture and is exactly what the Tory party should be frightened about."
(Telegraph - quoting a Westminster source).
‘Why should I pay my TV licence when the BBC produces content the entirety of which I don’t agree with/want to watch? Why should I pay into the NHS when it treats plebs who smoke and drink?’
That individualism is the driver of many good things in society, but it can’t recognise when some collectivism, when we all pay into a collective pot, is a Good Thing.
Yes, the BBC can be a bit lefty. But it’s a creative industry, crammed with creative types who don’t temperamentally tend to be right leaning. But on the positive side the BBC doesn’t just make EastEnders and the One Show. It creates so much great content, visually and aurally, that benefits society. It helps educate our children, it nourishes the arts that bring in money for the UK PLC, stuff that is hard to quantify but is of great benefit to us as a society.
The NHS, despite its faults, provides a healthy working population, the benefits of which are obvious.
I guess that’s a long winded way of saying that cliche that Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The Minister of Health of Catalonia, Alba Verges, has warned that this Christmas only family gatherings of six people will be allowed in the region, both in private and public spaces after analyzing the projections of the pandemic for the month of December. In addition, she adds that there will be no parades of kings in the streets in the traditional way.
The Local Police of Granada has evicted a party to celebrate a baptism and a communion in which 270 people gathered without a mask or safety distance, an event organized in a place without a license that had attractions for children and a stage for musicians without respect health measures against coronavirus. As reported to Efe by the Councilor for Security of Granada, César Díaz, the police intervention took place in a farmhouse known as "Carrijo", located in the surroundings of La Vega