Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why the boundary changes probably matter less than you think – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,168
edited February 2021 in General
imageWhy the boundary changes probably matter less than you think – politicalbetting.com

Sisyphus was happy, reckoned Albert Camus.  The Boundary Commissioners may have their own view on this: for the third time they are being asked to come up with new proposals.  Their proposals for 2012 and 2018 both came to nothing.  They are now beavering away on their proposals for 2024.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,207
    Excellent piece Alistair, and I completely agree.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    edited February 2021
    Talking of boundaries, that was a big six for Sundar! Sadly now out of partners on 85no, India will likely have to follow on.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234
    edited February 2021
    About 10th.

    (Base 3)

    Thanks for this, Alistair. Interesting piece.

    I would be interested to see current membership figures for political parties. The latest numbers I have are nearly 2 years out of date.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    4th like the Lib Dems (until the watermelons overtake them)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234
    >Conservative gains in 2019 were strongly concentrated in areas which are either losing seats or seeing no gains in seat numbers in the boundary review.

    Is that actually the case? My impression was that the areas relatively retained by Lab in the Red Wall were skewed towards Metropolitan areas. What is likely to happen in, for example, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    So in areas such as Wales where the seat count is going down and Labour are strong, Labour can reasonably expect losses from seat count reductions to fall disproportionately on other parties – for example, the Conservatives are unlikely to keep two seats out of what is currently Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan, and may not keep either.

    As it happens, Conservative gains in 2019 were strongly concentrated in areas which are either losing seats or seeing no gains in seat numbers in the boundary review. There are likely to be a lot of fretful first time Conservative MPs as a result.


    No Alistair. It’s the Valleys and the west coast that take a pounding - areas where the Tories are weak. The way the changes fall as currently proposed, Plaid are cut in half, and Labour lose about a third of their MPs. The Tories lose a grand total of two.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,207
    Re boundary reviews: give CV19 may cause a long term exodus of people away from cities and towards smaller conurbations, it is entirely possible that the boundary commission will draw constituencies that will be rapidly out of date.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    I think this may partly be a misconception on Alistair’s part. Yes, Labour are traditionally strong in Wales, as a whole. But they are actually masking a very uneven performance with continuing strength in the surroundings of three of the five major urban areas - Cardiff, Merthyr and Swansea. Those areas (including surrounding towns e.g. Neath, Port Talbot, Pontypridd, Radyr, Caerphilly) account for around 75% of all Labour’s votes in Wales and 80% of their seats. Of the other major urban areas - Newport and Wrexham - one they clung on to by their fingernails, and the other they actually lost.

    Let’s just say this. Labour have just two seats left in Wales outside the triangle from Swansea to Merthyr to Newport. Llanelli (which is closely aligned to those areas) and Alyn and Deeside, which is the most marginal seat in Wales and is in any case one of the ones set to go. They are in fact the *third* party in all that area, behind the Tories and Plaid.

    And yet, it is the Valleys that are suffering depopulation and get severely reduced in any rejig. The one area where Labour continue to be strong is the one where they lose out.

    So Alistair’s argument may hold up well (probably does hold up well) in Northern England, but it can’t and shouldn’t be applied to Wales.

    So that’s another several seats Starmer has to find from somewhere.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    rcs1000 said:

    Re boundary reviews: give CV19 may cause a long term exodus of people away from cities and towards smaller conurbations, it is entirely possible that the boundary commission will draw constituencies that will be rapidly out of date.

    Or in other words, ‘do what they always have done?’
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,464
    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    It’s surely unlikely to have a major impact on boundary changes. London is always underrepresented anyway for a lot of reasons.

    What it might do is make some seats in the south and Midlands much tighter. If there’s a lot of flight to say, Leamington, which has direct fast trains to London, the Tories can kiss that seat goodbye for a generation (and I don’t mean a Scottish generation of two years, either).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Sandpit said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
    I don’t believe it is. I haven’t seen any sign of staff being hired.

    The ONS and indeed its predecessor the OPCS tried to make 2001 and 2011 the last. Both times they were overruled, but I suspect they will have seen this as an excellent opportunity to have another go.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,708
    edited February 2021
    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
    I don’t believe it is. I haven’t seen any sign of staff being hired.

    The ONS and indeed its predecessor the OPCS tried to make 2001 and 2011 the last. Both times they were overruled, but I suspect they will have seen this as an excellent opportunity to have another go.
    Looks like it is going ahead on 21st March, mostly online but with followups after the date.

    This is I think the latest statement, from 22nd January. https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/census2021andcoronavirus
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The real battle will be to get the younger generation to pay at all.

    When I went to uni back in 2001 one of the first things I did was get a TV licence (quite a performance to get the postcode out of Aber). But now? I wouldn’t bother. YouTube and Netflix would provide all I wanted far more cheaply and enforcement would be nearly impossible if I watched the odd show live on air.

    Indeed, if I didn’t watch live sport I probably wouldn’t need a TV licence now. I can’t remember when I last watched BBC produced materials on iPlayer, which is the only other reason to have it.
  • ydoethur said:

    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
    Are you suggesting that attempting to pervert the course of justice, if that were to be proven, isn't a crime in Scotland? Only successfully doing so is a crime?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234
    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    Are these numbers recent enough to be affected by the 80-90k or so of over 70s who have died of causes related to COVID?

    (That is estimated, but not far off)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
    I don’t believe it is. I haven’t seen any sign of staff being hired.

    The ONS and indeed its predecessor the OPCS tried to make 2001 and 2011 the last. Both times they were overruled, but I suspect they will have seen this as an excellent opportunity to have another go.
    Looks like it is going ahead on 21st March, mostly online but with followups after the date.

    This is I think the latest statement, from 22nd January. https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/census2021andcoronavirus
    Their attempts to make it all digital explain why they haven’t been hiring so many staff. But equally, they tried that last time and paper was still ultimately very important.

    I think they may be making the wrong call, but it’s their call to make. The FMD comparison is asinine. That only affected 2% of the population.

    Equally, there is a slight air of ‘the lady doth protest too much’ about that statement. I wonder if they did try to cancel and were overruled, again.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    The other point is that on a 650 target, far more of the existing seats will survive unchanged, or suffer only minor tweaks, compared to a review looking to reduce the seat total, which proposed widescale changes.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    Pfizer aiming to reduce time taken to produce a batch of Covid vaccines, from 110 days to 60 days. Good news if they can churn them out twice as quickly.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/02/07/pfizer-expects-cut-covid-19-vaccine-production-time-almost-50/4423251001
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234
    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The real battle will be to get the younger generation to pay at all.

    When I went to uni back in 2001 one of the first things I did was get a TV licence (quite a performance to get the postcode out of Aber). But now? I wouldn’t bother. YouTube and Netflix would provide all I wanted far more cheaply and enforcement would be nearly impossible if I watched the odd show live on air.

    Indeed, if I didn’t watch live sport I probably wouldn’t need a TV licence now. I can’t remember when I last watched BBC produced materials on iPlayer, which is the only other reason to have it.
    For a *lot* of student accommodation bills are inclusive now.

    But the trend is set by local markets.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    ydoethur said:

    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
    Are you suggesting that attempting to pervert the course of justice, if that were to be proven, isn't a crime in Scotland? Only successfully doing so is a crime?
    Well, apparently so. Here is a commentary on the Coulson verdict.

    http://www.scotslawblog.com/defamation/not-every-lie-amounts-to-perjury-lessons-coulson-acquittal/
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,708
    edited February 2021
    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The real battle will be to get the younger generation to pay at all.

    When I went to uni back in 2001 one of the first things I did was get a TV licence (quite a performance to get the postcode out of Aber). But now? I wouldn’t bother. YouTube and Netflix would provide all I wanted far more cheaply and enforcement would be nearly impossible if I watched the odd show live on air.

    Indeed, if I didn’t watch live sport I probably wouldn’t need a TV licence now. I can’t remember when I last watched BBC produced materials on iPlayer, which is the only other reason to have it.
    Oh sure.

    The number of under 75s TVLs fell by 280,000 between 31/03/19 and 31/03/20 (per BBC accounts).

    It's likely numbers have continued to fall at a similar rate - indeed the rate of reduction may have accelerated given the problems the BBC has with enforcement caused by Covid.

    The BBC will also not have been helped by the reported fall in the population due to Covid - some reports have suggested up to 750,000 may have left the UK, and of course there are now 112,000 Covid deaths (and the total number of excess deaths may be even higher).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The real battle will be to get the younger generation to pay at all.

    When I went to uni back in 2001 one of the first things I did was get a TV licence (quite a performance to get the postcode out of Aber). But now? I wouldn’t bother. YouTube and Netflix would provide all I wanted far more cheaply and enforcement would be nearly impossible if I watched the odd show live on air.

    Indeed, if I didn’t watch live sport I probably wouldn’t need a TV licence now. I can’t remember when I last watched BBC produced materials on iPlayer, which is the only other reason to have it.
    For a *lot* of student accommodation bills are inclusive now.

    But the trend is set by local markets.
    Utility bills were included in 2001, but not TV licences because of the way the law was worded. Basically, if you had a door with a lock on it, it was a separate dwelling.

    Not sure if that has changed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,708
    MattW said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    Are these numbers recent enough to be affected by the 80-90k or so of over 70s who have died of causes related to COVID?

    (That is estimated, but not far off)
    See above post - the effect of the Covid deaths will be to reduce the "starting base" of 4,669,000 - that slightly reduces the estimate of the number unlicenced - but of course that doesn't help the BBC - as it just wants as many paying licences to be taken out as possible.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The real battle will be to get the younger generation to pay at all.

    When I went to uni back in 2001 one of the first things I did was get a TV licence (quite a performance to get the postcode out of Aber). But now? I wouldn’t bother. YouTube and Netflix would provide all I wanted far more cheaply and enforcement would be nearly impossible if I watched the odd show live on air.

    Indeed, if I didn’t watch live sport I probably wouldn’t need a TV licence now. I can’t remember when I last watched BBC produced materials on iPlayer, which is the only other reason to have it.
    For a *lot* of student accommodation bills are inclusive now.

    But the trend is set by local markets.
    Utility bills were included in 2001, but not TV licences because of the way the law was worded. Basically, if you had a door with a lock on it, it was a separate dwelling.

    Not sure if that has changed.
    TV Licensing used to spend a *lot* of time and effort trying to get students to buy licences, with in my experience very limited success outside hall of residence communal TV rooms. Today’s students just need a laptop and wifi, rather than a TV with an aerial.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
    Are you suggesting that attempting to pervert the course of justice, if that were to be proven, isn't a crime in Scotland? Only successfully doing so is a crime?
    Well, apparently so. Here is a commentary on the Coulson verdict.

    http://www.scotslawblog.com/defamation/not-every-lie-amounts-to-perjury-lessons-coulson-acquittal/
    That speaks about relevance to the case, which is surely a different test to whether it affected the outcome isn't it?

    The decision there was that what Coulson may or may not have lied about wasn't relevant to the Sherridan trial - the question here then is if there were any lies relevant to the Salmond trial.

    EG hypothetically you're being tried for murder, I lie under oath to say I saw you at the scene covered in blood. Reality is you were overseas at the time and I knew that. Jury acquits you. Surely I committed perjury?
  • Charles said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
    Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔

    If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,234
    edited February 2021
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The real battle will be to get the younger generation to pay at all.

    When I went to uni back in 2001 one of the first things I did was get a TV licence (quite a performance to get the postcode out of Aber). But now? I wouldn’t bother. YouTube and Netflix would provide all I wanted far more cheaply and enforcement would be nearly impossible if I watched the odd show live on air.

    Indeed, if I didn’t watch live sport I probably wouldn’t need a TV licence now. I can’t remember when I last watched BBC produced materials on iPlayer, which is the only other reason to have it.
    For a *lot* of student accommodation bills are inclusive now.

    But the trend is set by local markets.
    Utility bills were included in 2001, but not TV licences because of the way the law was worded. Basically, if you had a door with a lock on it, it was a separate dwelling.

    Not sure if that has changed.
    The standard practice for my Lettings Agent is that doors do not have locks on them (part of marketing towards a 'family' feel that students like), and a large screen TV is provided in the lounge-kitchen.

    Third party locks that do not need holes drilling are available if a student wishes from the shops.

    TVs in rooms are quite an old-hat thing, since everyone has laptops, and usually high end internet which is a basic facility to have.

    In the local city market that has been the practice for I guess nearly a decade amongst most high quality student lets.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,586
    Report in today's Times:

    "Almost 200 British academics are being investigated on suspicion of unwittingly helping the Chinese government build weapons of mass destruction, The Times can reveal.

    They are suspected of violating strict export laws intended to prevent intellectual property in highly sensitive subjects being handed to hostile states.

    The individuals could face a maximum of ten years in prison if found in breach of the Export Control Order 2008. A source told The Times that the government was preparing to send enforcement notices to up to 200 UK citizens working at more than a dozen British universities. The individuals are suspected of transferring world-leading research in advanced military technology such as aircraft, missile designs and cyberweapons to China." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hundreds-of-uk-academics-investigated-over-weapons-links-to-china-bpcks76bv
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
    Are you suggesting that attempting to pervert the course of justice, if that were to be proven, isn't a crime in Scotland? Only successfully doing so is a crime?
    Well, apparently so. Here is a commentary on the Coulson verdict.

    http://www.scotslawblog.com/defamation/not-every-lie-amounts-to-perjury-lessons-coulson-acquittal/
    That speaks about relevance to the case, which is surely a different test to whether it affected the outcome isn't it?

    The decision there was that what Coulson may or may not have lied about wasn't relevant to the Sherridan trial - the question here then is if there were any lies relevant to the Salmond trial.

    EG hypothetically you're being tried for murder, I lie under oath to say I saw you at the scene covered in blood. Reality is you were overseas at the time and I knew that. Jury acquits you. Surely I committed perjury?
    If I’ve read it correctly though that isn’t a parallel. Surely her evidence only became relevant if Salmond was convicted? In which case she’s not in criminal trouble whether she lied or not.

    But IANAL, still less a Scottish lawyer. DavidL would know more.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    MattW said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    Are these numbers recent enough to be affected by the 80-90k or so of over 70s who have died of causes related to COVID?

    (That is estimated, but not far off)
    And there will be people who took a free licence who don’t want or need one, including those who have gone into hospitals or care homes, or who have moved in with relatives.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    India have made a terrible error there.

    They got Dom Sibley out.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    ydoethur said:

    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
    It would very much depend what the form of the "evidence" was. The case did not proceed to a hearing so no evidence in the formal sense was led. If it is ascertained, and this seems inevitable, that the pleadings in the case were not entirely accurate then allocating responsibility on the person responsible is almost certainly going to be impossible. Counsel will of course have drafted the pleadings in accordance with the information provided but that information, even if it included a statement from Sturgeon, is not evidence in the case in the formal sense and could not result in a prosecution.

    In the highly unlikely scenario that there was evidence given by Sturgeon in an affidavit she would be a lot more exposed. Technically, that is evidence under oath and it is a criminal offence to lie in such an affidavit although I personally have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it (other than false declarations of solvency which is a bit different). I just think its very unlikely that happened in a judicial review where an evidential hearing was never allowed.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent piece Alistair, and I completely agree.

    Thank you.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    ydoethur said:

    India have made a terrible error there.

    They got Dom Sibley out.

    And to compound their error, Root comes in and smashes a couple straight to the boundary rope.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    ydoethur said:

    India have made a terrible error there.

    They got Dom Sibley out.

    Should certainly help the run rate. I suspect that the Windies heroics may just make Root that little bit more cautious and that he might be looking for a lead of 450 which will take the rest of the day (and would have taken until lunch tomorrow without said error).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    As Michael Slater once said, ‘that’s missing off and missing leg, but it’s not missing middle.’

    Pointless review.

    Still good news for Sharma. 300 wickets.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    India have made a terrible error there.

    They got Dom Sibley out.

    Should certainly help the run rate. I suspect that the Windies heroics may just make Root that little bit more cautious and that he might be looking for a lead of 450 which will take the rest of the day (and would have taken until lunch tomorrow without said error).
    Bangladesh were without their leading bowler, and it sill required something pretty sensational to pull it off.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    ydoethur said:

    As Michael Slater once said, ‘that’s missing off and missing leg, but it’s not missing middle.’

    Pointless review.

    Still good news for Sharma. 300 wickets.

    Wickets are clattering. That may be good news for England, of course, provided they are not just being silly.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    India have made a terrible error there.

    They got Dom Sibley out.

    Should certainly help the run rate. I suspect that the Windies heroics may just make Root that little bit more cautious and that he might be looking for a lead of 450 which will take the rest of the day (and would have taken until lunch tomorrow without said error).
    I know they didn’t like the idea of batting on the last day, but not enforcing the follow-on with a 240-run lead seems like a huge mistake. The target needs to be plausibly achieveable, to make them run, so yes 450ish from half an hour tonight and all day tomorrow.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,725
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    As Michael Slater once said, ‘that’s missing off and missing leg, but it’s not missing middle.’

    Pointless review.

    Still good news for Sharma. 300 wickets.

    Wickets are clattering. That may be good news for England, of course, provided they are not just being silly.
    We need another 100 runs..
  • ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
    I don’t believe it is. I haven’t seen any sign of staff being hired.

    The ONS and indeed its predecessor the OPCS tried to make 2001 and 2011 the last. Both times they were overruled, but I suspect they will have seen this as an excellent opportunity to have another go.
    Staff are definitely being hired. My wife was one of those knocking on doors in the 2011 census. A few months ago she was contacted by ONS inviting her to return for the 2021 census.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    On topic Alastair is clearly right that changes in the share of the vote are likely to be far, far more significant than the boundary changes in so far as the result is concerned. From the Tory point of view the loss of the first time incumbent bonus must be a concern. I also think that Alastair is right about the Tory vote being more efficient than Labour's now (unlike the Blair years where the Labour vote was incredibly efficient) and that creating vulnerability as well as opportunity.

    But I suspect he is wrong to underestimate the loss of seats in places like south Wales and in some of the cities where very safe Labour seats have been getting smaller and smaller and some will disappear altogether. It won't make SKS's job any easier but if the tide is with him that won't matter too much.
  • ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
    I don’t believe it is. I haven’t seen any sign of staff being hired.

    The ONS and indeed its predecessor the OPCS tried to make 2001 and 2011 the last. Both times they were overruled, but I suspect they will have seen this as an excellent opportunity to have another go.
    As pb's resident redundancy victim, I have received many adverts for census work. A quick google finds this pithily-named website:
    https://www.censusjobs.co.uk/

    Of course, the census might be postponed or even cancelled but continued recruitment efforts suggest it has not been yet (even though recruitment has been privatised).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,586

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    As Michael Slater once said, ‘that’s missing off and missing leg, but it’s not missing middle.’

    Pointless review.

    Still good news for Sharma. 300 wickets.

    Wickets are clattering. That may be good news for England, of course, provided they are not just being silly.
    We need another 100 runs..
    On only 10 occasions in the history of test cricket has a team scored 362 or more to win a test match. Current lead is 305, and I dont think England will have much problem getting another 60 runs with Root and Stokes at the crease.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043497/test-cricket-4th-innings-run-chase/
  • DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    As Michael Slater once said, ‘that’s missing off and missing leg, but it’s not missing middle.’

    Pointless review.

    Still good news for Sharma. 300 wickets.

    Wickets are clattering. That may be good news for England, of course, provided they are not just being silly.
    We need another 100 runs..
    Stokes and Root at the crease together. Call it 90 minutes if they stay in?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    India have made a terrible error there.

    They got Dom Sibley out.

    Should certainly help the run rate. I suspect that the Windies heroics may just make Root that little bit more cautious and that he might be looking for a lead of 450 which will take the rest of the day (and would have taken until lunch tomorrow without said error).
    Bangladesh were without their leading bowler, and it sill required something pretty sensational to pull it off.
    Sure, and it is not going to happen often. But a batsman like Pant makes opposing captains nervous. He can score so fast it stretches the envelope of what is possible. And modern wickets don't in general seem to deteriorate quite as much.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,598
    Andy_JS said:

    Report in today's Times:

    "Almost 200 British academics are being investigated on suspicion of unwittingly helping the Chinese government build weapons of mass destruction, The Times can reveal.

    They are suspected of violating strict export laws intended to prevent intellectual property in highly sensitive subjects being handed to hostile states.

    The individuals could face a maximum of ten years in prison if found in breach of the Export Control Order 2008. A source told The Times that the government was preparing to send enforcement notices to up to 200 UK citizens working at more than a dozen British universities. The individuals are suspected of transferring world-leading research in advanced military technology such as aircraft, missile designs and cyberweapons to China." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hundreds-of-uk-academics-investigated-over-weapons-links-to-china-bpcks76bv

    "unwittingly"?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    As Michael Slater once said, ‘that’s missing off and missing leg, but it’s not missing middle.’

    Pointless review.

    Still good news for Sharma. 300 wickets.

    Wickets are clattering. That may be good news for England, of course, provided they are not just being silly.
    We need another 100 runs..
    Stokes and Root at the crease together. Call it 90 minutes if they stay in?
    Hmmm....
  • Charles said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
    Yup, especially with the TV license, where the BBC doesn't just steal from the poor, it abuses the court system to do it.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    As Michael Slater once said, ‘that’s missing off and missing leg, but it’s not missing middle.’

    Pointless review.

    Still good news for Sharma. 300 wickets.

    Wickets are clattering. That may be good news for England, of course, provided they are not just being silly.
    We need another 100 runs..
    Stokes and Root at the crease together. Call it 90 minutes if they stay in?
    Hmmm....
    Sorry.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
    I don’t believe it is. I haven’t seen any sign of staff being hired.

    The ONS and indeed its predecessor the OPCS tried to make 2001 and 2011 the last. Both times they were overruled, but I suspect they will have seen this as an excellent opportunity to have another go.
    Staff are definitely being hired. My wife was one of those knocking on doors in the 2011 census. A few months ago she was contacted by ONS inviting her to return for the 2021 census.
    Interesting. I also worked on it and had as a result been checking for adverts (for curiosity only) and have seen nothing. Nor have I been contacted. Maybe I was just rubbish unlike your good lady :smile:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    There are more no balls here than at a eunuchs’ convention.

    Edit - brilliant save there.
  • ydoethur said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    It’s surely unlikely to have a major impact on boundary changes. London is always underrepresented anyway for a lot of reasons.

    What it might do is make some seats in the south and Midlands much tighter. If there’s a lot of flight to say, Leamington, which has direct fast trains to London, the Tories can kiss that seat goodbye for a generation (and I don’t mean a Scottish generation of two years, either).
    Boundary reviews are to be based on the March 2020 electoral registers so subsequent movements and the census will have no direct effect, except they may persuade the government to hang fire again or change the rules.

    Insofar as the escape from London was mainly foreigners returning home after Brexit and encouraged by Covid-19, it will not affect the electorate or the boundary reviews.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    Is the census still going ahead this year?
    There was some report a week or two ago that reckoned 700k people had left London in the past 12 months. Now a lot of those will be foreigners leaving the country, but there’s reports of family houses in suburbia and the countryside selling well in the past few months, so people are moving out of the Smoke.
    I don’t believe it is. I haven’t seen any sign of staff being hired.

    The ONS and indeed its predecessor the OPCS tried to make 2001 and 2011 the last. Both times they were overruled, but I suspect they will have seen this as an excellent opportunity to have another go.
    Staff are definitely being hired. My wife was one of those knocking on doors in the 2011 census. A few months ago she was contacted by ONS inviting her to return for the 2021 census.
    Interesting. I also worked on it and had as a result been checking for adverts (for curiosity only) and have seen nothing. Nor have I been contacted. Maybe I was just rubbish unlike your good lady :smile:
    Have to say that a census in the time of Covid seems a completely bizarre idea. Probably a program that someone has not got around to switching off yet.
  • ydoethur said:

    There are more no balls here than at a eunuchs’ convention.

    Edit - brilliant save there.

    That was an interesting boundary review.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Alastair.

    Alistair.

    Al-a-stair.

    Ali-i-stair.

    One of us spells our name incorrectly and the other is correct.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,598
    edited February 2021

    Charles said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
    Yup, especially with the TV license, where the BBC doesn't just steal from the poor, it abuses the court system to do it.
    We spent a year doing up a house, during which time it was empty. The level of aggression from TVL was an eye-opener. Even when informed the house was unoccupied, they had a default setting that everything they were told was a lie and I still needed a licence.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    ydoethur said:

    There are more no balls here than at a eunuchs’ convention.

    Edit - brilliant save there.

    That was an interesting boundary review.
    They reduced representation by 25%
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477
    ydoethur said:

    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
    People don't believe Sturgeon not him. Some nats want him to 'shut up' for 'the cause'. That's not the same thing.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Report in today's Times:

    "Almost 200 British academics are being investigated on suspicion of unwittingly helping the Chinese government build weapons of mass destruction, The Times can reveal.

    They are suspected of violating strict export laws intended to prevent intellectual property in highly sensitive subjects being handed to hostile states.

    The individuals could face a maximum of ten years in prison if found in breach of the Export Control Order 2008. A source told The Times that the government was preparing to send enforcement notices to up to 200 UK citizens working at more than a dozen British universities. The individuals are suspected of transferring world-leading research in advanced military technology such as aircraft, missile designs and cyberweapons to China." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hundreds-of-uk-academics-investigated-over-weapons-links-to-china-bpcks76bv

    "unwittingly"?
    In 20 years working for two American global tech companies, we all (even those who had no conceivable role) had to undertake annual training on technology transfer laws and the need to get any deals with certain countries signed off in triplicate by high-powered legal teams both here and in the States. I can easily believe universities are more naive and less clued up; even the government seems not to have noticed a potential problem till a couple of years ago.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    ydoethur said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    It’s surely unlikely to have a major impact on boundary changes. London is always underrepresented anyway for a lot of reasons.

    What it might do is make some seats in the south and Midlands much tighter. If there’s a lot of flight to say, Leamington, which has direct fast trains to London, the Tories can kiss that seat goodbye for a generation (and I don’t mean a Scottish generation of two years, either).
    Boundary reviews are to be based on the March 2020 electoral registers so subsequent movements and the census will have no direct effect, except they may persuade the government to hang fire again or change the rules.

    Insofar as the escape from London was mainly foreigners returning home after Brexit and encouraged by Covid-19, it will not affect the electorate or the boundary reviews.
    Not sure about that. They had the right to vote in local elections so they will have been on the electoral roll.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    What this shows is you can score fast, but it’s risky.

    Also in general India haven’t been at their best. No balls, dropped catches, silly shots.

    But that also means England need to try and ram the advantage home. They cannot assume India won’t raise their game, given how formidable a side they are and the very dangerous Jadeja still to come back. So to maximise their chances, they need to force the win here.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    The header is certainly incorrect with respect to Wales, which accounts for about half of Labour's nominal losses with the boundary review.

    To take out the effects of 2019 (when the Tories did relatively well in Wales) is fair enough.

    But that makes the effects worse for Labour.

    In a typical General Election, Labour losses in Wales from the boundary review will be greater than computed on the 2019 results.

    ---

    "For example, the Conservatives are unlikely to keep two seats out of what is currently Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan, and may not keep either."

    That really does depend on the details -- it is perfectly possible to make a safer Tory seat from the Vale of G and the easterly, more affluent parts of the Bridgend constituency as well.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,598
    Can you bet on the numbers and timing of reviews?

    If so, things that make you go "Hmmm....."
  • ydoethur said:

    Embarrassing though an admission of lying to the CoS would be - and personally I still think it unlikely that Sturgeon would do something so foolish - remember it wouldn’t be a crime in Scotland, as it didn’t affect the outcome of a case.

    Or to put it another way, if Coulson got off...

    Edit - that said, I wonder what’s more wounding for Alex Salmond - the fact he has been put on trial for his *ahem* activities, or the fact that everyone believes Sturgeon and not him.
    People don't believe Sturgeon not him. Some nats want him to 'shut up' for 'the cause'. That's not the same thing.
    I think more people do believe Sturgeon over him, whether they should or not.

    There certainly from afar seems to be an air of "he was acquited, like OJ Simpson was acquited" about Salmond. Whether he was guilty or innocent, his reputation is trash.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    The header is certainly incorrect with respect to Wales, which accounts for about half of Labour's nominal losses with the boundary review.

    To take out the effects of 2019 (when the Tories did relatively well in Wales) is fair enough.

    But that makes the effects worse for Labour.

    In a typical General Election, Labour losses in Wales from the boundary review will be greater than computed on the 2019 results.

    ---

    "For example, the Conservatives are unlikely to keep two seats out of what is currently Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan, and may not keep either."

    That really does depend on the details -- it is perfectly possible to make a safer Tory seat from the Vale of G and the easterly, more affluent parts of the Bridgend constituency as well.

    Great minds, oh sleepy poet :smile:
  • SA top medic tells R4 he thinks AZ will work well in older people by extrapolating from work they have on the Johnson vaccine.

    Could be major news.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    I suppose, in fairness, Root is doing OK, and India have two batsmen of similar or even higher ability in Pujara and Kohli.

    But if Stokes found it tough...
  • Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    So Labour wants to "insource" PPE manufacturing etc?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    So Labour wants to "insource" PPE manufacturing etc?
    They will be trying to mask manufacturing decline, rather than face it.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,052

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    So Labour wants to "insource" PPE manufacturing etc?
    Of course. Got to ensure Labour cronies in the public sector get their fair share.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    And he's stood in front of a fucking massive poppy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    Is this not also what Boris has promised so far as the NHS is concerned?
  • India are currently 15s on Betfair to win this match, I'm on because I remember this match from 2008.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/india-v-england-betting-30233775
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    So Labour wants to "insource" PPE manufacturing etc?
    So Labour want to give the contracts to their friends and donors

    What a surprise.....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,204
    edited February 2021
    ydoethur said:

    Not much mention of London - the census may give us a steer but anecdotally comments ref the big smoke indicate quite an exodus. I think Alistair is right though, on the whole boundary changes (if they ever happen) are overstated... a well organised party (like the big 2) soon work out an appropriate strategy.

    It’s surely unlikely to have a major impact on boundary changes. London is always underrepresented anyway for a lot of reasons.

    What it might do is make some seats in the south and Midlands much tighter. If there’s a lot of flight to say, Leamington, which has direct fast trains to London, the Tories can kiss that seat goodbye for a generation (and I don’t mean a Scottish generation of two years, either).
    The principle of commuter towns trending more Labour is sound but in that area the mahoosively safe Tory seat of Kenilworth and Southam is being disbanded and Warwick and Leamington gain villages (Bubbenhall, Kingswood, Stoneleigh) which likely make the seat a Conservative gain.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Ooops.
  • Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    Same old Labour

    Yesterday, Miliband was attacking the government for not giving a pay rise to the public sector while tens of thousands jobs in the private sector are lost and businesses are ravaged, just the sectors that generate the taxes to contribute towards public sector wage increases

  • A header which opens with Albert Camus.

    Superb stuff!!
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Floater, aye, the unwitting irony is quite good.

    F1: about a week or so until the car reveals get going. Not really my kind of thing, but at least it's not too long until testing and the first race.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
    Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔

    If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
    I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.

    Your second point is fairer.
  • Yet another no ball
  • Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    Same old Labour

    Yesterday, Miliband was attacking the government for not giving a pay rise to the public sector while tens of thousands jobs in the private sector are lost and businesses are ravaged, just the sectors that generate the taxes to contribute towards public sector wage increases

    Don't worry the £100 billion trade deal with India will fund it.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    The Corbynites will love it. Not sure about anyone else.
  • What a shot by Buttler.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    MikeL said:

    Interesting situation with over 75s TV licences.

    The Mirror had a report yesterday and now similar reports have appeared in several papers, eg The Times today reports:

    "The BBC confirmed that 2.7 million over-75s had paid for their licence. An extra 750,000 applied for free licences available to anyone on pension credit, leaving a shortfall of 750,000 based on the 4.2 million over-75s who previously held free licences.

    Some could be covered if other people in the household have a licence, if they have stopped watching the BBC or have died. The figure, reported by the Sunday Mirror, has been denied by the BBC..............

    TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, said: “Around 80 per cent of over-75 households have transitioned to the new system, including those in receipt of pension credit eligible for a free licence funded by the BBC."

    There's only one problem with all these reports - go to the latest BBC Accounts and guess what - there were actually 4,669,000 (then free) over 75s TVLs in force at 31/03/20, not 4.2m. (No journalist for any national newspaper is capable of looking this up!)

    But anyway what it means is that in fact there are even more over 75s households yet to get a TVL.

    If the figures above of 2.7m and 750k are correct - that's 3.45m out of 4.669m which would be 74%. The BBC says "around 80%" so maybe these numbers are understated a bit - "around 80%" might mean say 77%. If so that would likely mean approx 2.8m paying licences issued and 800k free licences issued - making 3.6m in total - leaving over 1m unlicenced.

    And it's now over 6 months since free licences for over 75s ended.

    So looks as if the BBC is facing a pretty significant uphill battle - I'm sure numbers will continue to inch up but they may struggle to get more than approx 3m over 75s to pay.

    The mindset of people who are willing to justify stealing never ceases to amaze me
    Not paying for the BBC when you don't watch the BBC isn't stealing. 🤔

    If the BBC wants to be paid for it needs to be relevant. I pay for a TV Licence because I watch Sky live and if I want to watch live football I need to pay for the Licence Fee whether I watch the BBC or not. That is a mess.
    I’m willing to bet that a large number of the people the Mirror cites are watching TV.

    Your second point is fairer.
    What is this, the 1950s?

    Watching TV in the 2020s and watching the BBC are two very different things.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    Yet another no ball

    It’s getting silly.

    What’s worse is that half the time it’s the spinners overstepping. That is not a good sign.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    So Labour wants to "insource" PPE manufacturing etc?
    I'm sure the NVC - National Vaccine Corporation will work as well as EVdL's efforts for the EU....
  • Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    Same old Labour

    Yesterday, Miliband was attacking the government for not giving a pay rise to the public sector while tens of thousands jobs in the private sector are lost and businesses are ravaged, just the sectors that generate the taxes to contribute towards public sector wage increases

    Don't worry the £100 billion trade deal with India will fund it.
    You just do not like brexit and we know that

    Why not address the point I made about private sector job loses, 25,000 in retail this last fortnight alone
  • felix said:

    Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    The Corbynites will love it. Not sure about anyone else.
    If it involves stripping ATOS, Maxima and all the other out sourcers of involvement in DWP medical tests then I'm all for it.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    https://twitter.com/JordanBowenFOX/status/1358638510471671809

    Lets just remind ourselves that Florida already a hot spot and the UK variant is increasingly prevalent.........
  • Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    Same old Labour

    Yesterday, Miliband was attacking the government for not giving a pay rise to the public sector while tens of thousands jobs in the private sector are lost and businesses are ravaged, just the sectors that generate the taxes to contribute towards public sector wage increases

    Don't worry the £100 billion trade deal with India will fund it.
    You just do not like brexit and we know that

    Why not address the point I made about private sector job loses, 25,000 in retail this last fortnight alone
    No I dislike economically incorrect assertions.

    But we know you'll defend any old rubbish.
  • Just the thing to get them excited in the red wall. https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1358686316318359553?s=21

    Same old Labour

    Yesterday, Miliband was attacking the government for not giving a pay rise to the public sector while tens of thousands jobs in the private sector are lost and businesses are ravaged, just the sectors that generate the taxes to contribute towards public sector wage increases

    Don't worry the £100 billion trade deal with India will fund it.
    You just do not like brexit and we know that

    Why not address the point I made about private sector job loses, 25,000 in retail this last fortnight alone
    No I dislike economically incorrect assertions.

    But we know you'll defend any old rubbish.
    As do you
This discussion has been closed.