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
If Labour plans to hammer the corruption point, petty or otherwise, it may resonate with those who have lost their jobs.
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
If Labour plans to hammer the corruption point, petty or otherwise, it may resonate with those who have lost their jobs.
What is the difference with Labour handing power to the unions
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.
In Wales, the main issue is losing the over-representation which was to compensate for not having as much devolved power as Scotland (before devolution, both countries were over-represented). This dates back to the days when CCHQ convinced itself the blue team was permanently locked out.
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
If Labour plans to hammer the corruption point, petty or otherwise, it may resonate with those who have lost their jobs.
I mentioned on here that a couple of pollsters said their focus groups said it was one the things they most remember about the government's handling of the pandemic.
Morning all! Will be on here only intermittently this week as I move to Scotland on Wednesday.
On topic, I agree with Alastair's assessment. The sad thing about boundary reviews is that they have become such an obvious political football. Recent proposed changes were explicitly set out by the governing party as a way to cement its base - whether that happens in practice or not doesn't matter, the motivation was there.
This is where I could make a passionate argument for depoliticisation of the whole thing. But as it's futile I won't bother. The UK - if there is still to be a UK - needs wholesale reform from the ground up. Of which there is almost no chance.
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
If Labour plans to hammer the corruption point, petty or otherwise, it may resonate with those who have lost their jobs.
One of the labels that hurt J Major's Tories in 1996/7 was the sleaze - Jenrick's property roles, drinks photos of Hancock with bidders for covid supplies and a sense of enrichment by Conservative donors will matter in red wall seats when the money tree no longer keeps fruiting and unemployment etc start to bite. It wont win an election for SKS but it might just make a label that sticks....
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.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
Morning all! Will be on here only intermittently this week as I move to Scotland on Wednesday.
On topic, I agree with Alastair's assessment. The sad thing about boundary reviews is that they have become such an obvious political football. Recent proposed changes were explicitly set out by the governing party as a way to cement its base - whether that happens in practice or not doesn't matter, the motivation was there.
This is where I could make a passionate argument for depoliticisation of the whole thing. But as it's futile I won't bother. The UK - if there is still to be a UK - needs wholesale reform from the ground up. Of which there is almost no chance.
Are you questioning the independence of the commission? As Alastair says, this sort of thing doesn't automatically favour one party. The Tories incursions into lower turnout areas since 2005 has greatly reduced in-built advantage Labour had back then. I don't think these changes make a huge amount of difference.
Ultimately, if you don't like FPTP, argue against it, don't get hung up about an independent commission trying to produce a fair set of seats.
The R4 interview was a bit of a car crash imo. Not a lot of evidence, but lot of mudslinging.
"Well, this chap is the brother of a former Tory MP". Hmmm.
Rachel Reeves does not have a happy history of lists. Last year she came up with a list of PPE Suppliers Who Deserve To Be Considered included the likes of a football agent and a solicitor.
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
If Labour plans to hammer the corruption point, petty or otherwise, it may resonate with those who have lost their jobs.
One of the labels that hurt J Major's Tories in 1996/7 was the sleaze - Jenrick's property roles, drinks photos of Hancock with bidders for covid supplies and a sense of enrichment by Conservative donors will matter in red wall seats when the money tree no longer keeps fruiting and unemployment etc start to bite. It wont win an election for SKS but it might just make a label that sticks....
I suspect that's the strategic thinking. The dodgy way in which these contracts have been rushed through during the pandemic won't stick, but if a minister subsequently gets into another Jenrick-type scandal, it creates a backdrop against which that person can be nailed.
I wonder if we’re not all slightly missing the point here.
DavidL confirmed upthread it’s most unlikely to result in prosecution or other sanction even if true.
But it will royally piss off the Court of Sessions which is hardly going to make them likely to offer favours to her over matters on referendums should Johnson maintain his intransigent stance on one.
And given she would need them to be extremely sympathetic to her case for it to go against the clearly stated law, that is to say the least unfortunate.
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
If Labour plans to hammer the corruption point, petty or otherwise, it may resonate with those who have lost their jobs.
What is the difference with Labour handing power to the unions
Both are wrong
The question is what you mean by "unions".
Let me give you a local example. Urgent Care was privatised and handed over to Virgin. Due to the crap service received, local GPs formed a co-operative and successfully bid to take over Urgent Care service.
This service now once again being done in-house is not it being "handed to the unions".
Morning all! Will be on here only intermittently this week as I move to Scotland on Wednesday.
On topic, I agree with Alastair's assessment. The sad thing about boundary reviews is that they have become such an obvious political football. Recent proposed changes were explicitly set out by the governing party as a way to cement its base - whether that happens in practice or not doesn't matter, the motivation was there.
This is where I could make a passionate argument for depoliticisation of the whole thing. But as it's futile I won't bother. The UK - if there is still to be a UK - needs wholesale reform from the ground up. Of which there is almost no chance.
Are you questioning the independence of the commission? As Alastair says, this sort of thing doesn't automatically favour one party. The Tories incursions into lower turnout areas since 2005 has greatly reduced in-built advantage Labour had back then. I don't think these changes make a huge amount of difference.
Ultimately, if you don't like FPTP, argue against it, don't get hung up about an independent commission trying to produce a fair set of seats.
No, I'm questioning the political bias in the brief given to the commission. They need to be truly independent with a Royal Warrant to conduct boundary reviews on a rolling basis at a set interval. Cut the politicians out of it completely.
IMO the real issue about boundaries is that they count registered voters rather than British citizens, which massively disadvantages areas where people move frequently, i.e. cities. People who've lived in the same place for 20 years say "Well, if they can't be bothered to register, why should they be represented?" but if you're in a series of temporary places and sofa-surfing because you're struggling to afford anywhere, then registering to vote is just not on your radar - but you're still British and your interests ought to be heard like anyone else.
It's an opinion piece and slightly hysterical in tone (photographs of savings jars? Really?), and "lose more than £100/month and you need to show you can afford it" doesn't sound that crazy to me, but maybe it's a bit intrusive and/or it will drive gambling into the unregulated sector. Perhaps the limit is too low?
Surely England could declare now and take the chance
I mostly agree, except that West Indies scored 395 yesterday to beat Bangladesh. I know theyre not a good side but Root probably doesnt want to risk it.
People are angry with Tory sleaze. Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
Are people angry? Ordinarily what these politicians have done would absolutely bury them, but in the post-fact Brexit world I'm not sure that is the case. People seem very willing to ignore/forgive all kinds of outrages by their team - whether that continues as they realise Brexit delivered them a turd in a pink ribbon rather than their promised moon on a stick remains to be seen.
You make a very good point in your last sentence, and this is one that Labour have consistently failed to understand. There is an obvious model they should pursue - the European state enterprises who so dominate large chunks of the UK economy. Explain to people that when they buy power from EDF that is Electricite de France and is owned by the French taxpayer. That Arriva Bus is Deutche Bahn owned by the German Taxpayer. That DPD parcel delivery is La Paste, again owned by the French taxpayer.
The successful model is a state owned commercial enterprise - which Ed Milliband timidly proposed in part to reform the energy market. These *cannot* become union fiefdoms which is precisely why the unreformed Labour Party won't propose them. They need to go back to the Blair reforms, divorce the unions, and start planning for fair prosperity. Or face another decade in opposition expressing faux outrage as to why people keep voting for clearly corrupt Tories over their offer of clearly corrupt Unions...
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.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
I don't think he means that.
If you don't watch any live tv or use iplayer, you can watch as much tv as you like perfectly legally via all the catchup services, netflix, amazon prime, youtube without a licence.
It is perfectly possible in 2020 to watch tv this way. Personally I don't watch any live tv other than sport. If i didn't like sport, I wouldn't have a licence as I have no need for it.
Its true that the BBC never shows any cricket footage that doesnt involve England, whereas they do occasionally show reports involving other countries in other sports like football, rugby, tennis, athletics.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
I wonder if we’re not all slightly missing the point here.
DavidL confirmed upthread it’s most unlikely to result in prosecution or other sanction even if true.
But it will royally piss off the Court of Sessions which is hardly going to make them likely to offer favours to her over matters on referendums should Johnson maintain his intransigent stance on one.
And given she would need them to be extremely sympathetic to her case for it to go against the clearly stated law, that is to say the least unfortunate.
I suspect Sturgeon is too smart to have done anything dodgy. Whether the same can be said of those immediately around her may well be another matter.
I've always said cricket was a major reason why apartheid ended and Britain became the home of the anti-apartheid movement.
Prior to 1968 it was seen as something that really didn't affect Britain, then people saw how it discriminated against Basil D'Oliveira and it awoke something in the British soul.
Peter Oborne's book on the D'Oliveira affair is fascinating read on just how much Vorster tried to stop Basil D'Oliveira being picked and just how many racists in the MCC tried to help him.
I've always said cricket was a major reason why apartheid ended and Britain became the home of the anti-apartheid movement.
Prior to 1968 it was seen as something that really didn't affect Britain, then people saw how it discriminated against Basil D'Oliveira and it awoke something in the British soul.
Peter Oborne's book on the D'Oliveira affair is fascinating read on just how much Vorster tried to stop Basil D'Oliveira being picked and just how many racists in the MCC tried to help him.
It's just a shame cricket couldn't rescue Zimbabwe.
An interesting header, with which I broadly agree.
Alastair refers to "solidly Labour Brighton Kemptown" in the header, and he's right at the moment. But Labour only won it in 2017, and held it comfortably in 2019. It was Conservative from 2010-2017. Labour won it in the Blair years, but from 1970 to 1997 it was Conservative. Hove is almost exactly the same story - a once solid Conservative seat has become solid Labour over the last five years. I guess this shows Labour's dominance of the urban metropolitan types who live in Brighton/Hove (I suspect Kemptown has the largest, proportionately, gay community in the UK). But Alastair's right, non-Conservative voters are spreading out to both the east and the west, as house prices are so high in Brighton/Hove that young lefties are looking to places like Shoreham and Worthing to buy their first flats or houses.
So voting Labour is a bit like Covid: it starts in the metropolitan areas, and spreads, though not quite as virulently, to the surrounding towns and coastal strips.
People are angry with Tory sleaze. Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
It was of course sleaze that did for the Cons in 1997 but as you say, things have changed. If the vaccine rollout continues to be a success then people won't mind who had the contracts for PPE months earlier as the Cons' handling of contracts overall will be seen to be a "good thing".
I love the Grauniad's hypocrisy in slamming the Queen for trying to keep her private wealth private (and why shouldn't she) whilst the Grauniad hides its wealth in a series of trusts.
It's an opinion piece and slightly hysterical in tone (photographs of savings jars? Really?), and "lose more than £100/month and you need to show you can afford it" doesn't sound that crazy to me, but maybe it's a bit intrusive and/or it will drive gambling into the unregulated sector. Perhaps the limit is too low?
Identity and affordability checks already exist and bookmakers can ask for passports, payslips and savings accounts statements. (iirc the NCSC has questioned the safety of uploading passports.) Last year I managed to persuade a bookmaker that their demands for more and more information were becoming intrusive. (Bookmakers can be fined millions of pounds if it turns out we are betting with money pinched from our employers, and then there are money laundering regulations.)
KYC (know your customer) procedures have, you will be surprised to learn, been used to delay payments to winning customers.
£100 a month is a very low figure, especially for those who back outsiders. Follow the Pricewise tips in the Racing Post and you might make a profit in the long term but will certainly lose £100 most months.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
No it isn't....if you don't watch live tv or iplayer, you don't need a licence.
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.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
Your assumption that people are breaking the law rather than just saying I dont need broadcast tv anymore is without foundation....show evidence that they aren't just people like my father who no longer watches broadcast tv.....don't have any ...thought not.
Perhaps show there is law breaking going on before accusing. People have been opting out of the licence fee in numbers ever since streaming became a thing
People are angry with Tory sleaze. Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
Are people angry? Ordinarily what these politicians have done would absolutely bury them, but in the post-fact Brexit world I'm not sure that is the case. People seem very willing to ignore/forgive all kinds of outrages by their team - whether that continues as they realise Brexit delivered them a turd in a pink ribbon rather than their promised moon on a stick remains to be seen.
You make a very good point in your last sentence, and this is one that Labour have consistently failed to understand. There is an obvious model they should pursue - the European state enterprises who so dominate large chunks of the UK economy. Explain to people that when they buy power from EDF that is Electricite de France and is owned by the French taxpayer. That Arriva Bus is Deutche Bahn owned by the German Taxpayer. That DPD parcel delivery is La Paste, again owned by the French taxpayer.
The successful model is a state owned commercial enterprise - which Ed Milliband timidly proposed in part to reform the energy market. These *cannot* become union fiefdoms which is precisely why the unreformed Labour Party won't propose them. They need to go back to the Blair reforms, divorce the unions, and start planning for fair prosperity. Or face another decade in opposition expressing faux outrage as to why people keep voting for clearly corrupt Tories over their offer of clearly corrupt Unions...
Great post.
Regarding the anger, i am responding to the focus group reports that I think @TSE posted about.
There is surely a general sense that it is “one rule for them”.
This encompasses: - Dom’s trip to Durham - cronyism and sleaze - Brexit done at the expense of small biz - Deaf ears and arrogance at the DfE - University students sent to prison cells to help university finances - Anything ever uttered by Rees-Mogg - Boris’s general mendacity
That feeling of anger - and the feeling that the Tories will spunk the “build back” on their mates - is what Keir needs to tap into.
Its true that the BBC never shows any cricket footage that doesnt involve England, whereas they do occasionally show reports involving other countries in other sports like football, rugby, tennis, athletics.
Do you think fear of showing the British Empire in a good light is preventing this?
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
Wrong. You can watch netflix and prime without a license.
It's an opinion piece and slightly hysterical in tone (photographs of savings jars? Really?), and "lose more than £100/month and you need to show you can afford it" doesn't sound that crazy to me, but maybe it's a bit intrusive and/or it will drive gambling into the unregulated sector. Perhaps the limit is too low?
Identity and affordability checks already exist and bookmakers can ask for passports, payslips and savings accounts statements. (iirc the NCSC has questioned the safety of uploading passports.) Last year I managed to persuade a bookmaker that their demands for more and more information were becoming intrusive. (Bookmakers can be fined millions of pounds if it turns out we are betting with money pinched from our employers, and then there are money laundering regulations.)
KYC (know your customer) procedures have, you will be surprised to learn, been used to delay payments to winning customers.
£100 a month is a very low figure, especially for those who back outsiders. Follow the Pricewise tips in the Racing Post and you might make a profit in the long term but will certainly lose £100 most months.
It will also be used by the industry to root out professional gamblers. Staking tens of thousands or more without a commensurate income through a job wont be allowed even for winners. Another step in the bookmakers turning the betting industry from a market in their favour to a market in which no-one else is allowed to win.
An interesting header, with which I broadly agree.
Alastair refers to "solidly Labour Brighton Kemptown" in the header, and he's right at the moment. But Labour only won it in 2017, and held it comfortably in 2019. It was Conservative from 2010-2017. Labour won it in the Blair years, but from 1970 to 1997 it was Conservative. Hove is almost exactly the same story - a once solid Conservative seat has become solid Labour over the last five years. I guess this shows Labour's dominance of the urban metropolitan types who live in Brighton/Hove (I suspect Kemptown has the largest, proportionately, gay community in the UK). But Alastair's right, non-Conservative voters are spreading out to both the east and the west, as house prices are so high in Brighton/Hove that young lefties are looking to places like Shoreham and Worthing to buy their first flats or houses.
So voting Labour is a bit like Covid: it starts in the metropolitan areas, and spreads, though not quite as virulently, to the surrounding towns and coastal strips.
Worry not: Tory donors are working on a vaccine....
Interesting column from Colin Greenwood, bassist in the seminal, cerebral, incomparable Radiohead. I know, like me, you guys are big fans:
'It is time for the UK government to admit it didn’t do enough for the creative industries during the Brexit negotiations and look to renegotiate on the provision for touring in Europe. My country’s music is great because it scorns borders and boundaries; it is a great patriotic source, a force of confidence, joy and shared passions. I am proud of my country and all the music it has exchanged with the world, and I am sure that pride is felt across all ages and cultures in the UK. It is the antithesis of the culturally pinched nationalism that is Brexit, and its diminishment would deprive us all.'
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
If Labour plans to hammer the corruption point, petty or otherwise, it may resonate with those who have lost their jobs.
What is the difference with Labour handing power to the unions
Both are wrong
The question is what you mean by "unions".
Let me give you a local example. Urgent Care was privatised and handed over to Virgin. Due to the crap service received, local GPs formed a co-operative and successfully bid to take over Urgent Care service.
This service now once again being done in-house is not it being "handed to the unions".
No I agree with you in that example
I was referring to empowering the unions and a large increase in public sector employment
An interesting header, with which I broadly agree.
Alastair refers to "solidly Labour Brighton Kemptown" in the header, and he's right at the moment. But Labour only won it in 2017, and held it comfortably in 2019. It was Conservative from 2010-2017. Labour won it in the Blair years, but from 1970 to 1997 it was Conservative. Hove is almost exactly the same story - a once solid Conservative seat has become solid Labour over the last five years. I guess this shows Labour's dominance of the urban metropolitan types who live in Brighton/Hove (I suspect Kemptown has the largest, proportionately, gay community in the UK). But Alastair's right, non-Conservative voters are spreading out to both the east and the west, as house prices are so high in Brighton/Hove that young lefties are looking to places like Shoreham and Worthing to buy their first flats or houses.
So voting Labour is a bit like Covid: it starts in the metropolitan areas, and spreads, though not quite as virulently, to the surrounding towns and coastal strips.
Worry not: Tory donors are working on a vaccine....
They'll probably do a better job than Oxford University.
I guess Macron will be banging on about the news from South Africa.
On topic, a useful reminder that the boundary changes are unlikely to work out exactly the way people expect. To the fury of social scientists, people are unpredictable. But, as others have pointed out, some changes could matter more than we expect, rather than less. As so often, time will tell.
Its true that the BBC never shows any cricket footage that doesnt involve England, whereas they do occasionally show reports involving other countries in other sports like football, rugby, tennis, athletics.
People are angry with Tory sleaze. Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
Are people angry? Ordinarily what these politicians have done would absolutely bury them, but in the post-fact Brexit world I'm not sure that is the case. People seem very willing to ignore/forgive all kinds of outrages by their team - whether that continues as they realise Brexit delivered them a turd in a pink ribbon rather than their promised moon on a stick remains to be seen.
You make a very good point in your last sentence, and this is one that Labour have consistently failed to understand. There is an obvious model they should pursue - the European state enterprises who so dominate large chunks of the UK economy. Explain to people that when they buy power from EDF that is Electricite de France and is owned by the French taxpayer. That Arriva Bus is Deutche Bahn owned by the German Taxpayer. That DPD parcel delivery is La Paste, again owned by the French taxpayer.
The successful model is a state owned commercial enterprise - which Ed Milliband timidly proposed in part to reform the energy market. These *cannot* become union fiefdoms which is precisely why the unreformed Labour Party won't propose them. They need to go back to the Blair reforms, divorce the unions, and start planning for fair prosperity. Or face another decade in opposition expressing faux outrage as to why people keep voting for clearly corrupt Tories over their offer of clearly corrupt Unions...
To which the tories surely just point at Robin hood power company which was state owned if you consider a council part of the state. The companies you mentioned may be state owned like EDF but they are competing as if private here
Fewer than half of French citizens trust that their government will be up to the task when it comes to coronavirus vaccinations, but more have faith in the EU, a survey has found.
In a Harris Interactive/Euros Agency poll, obtained exclusively by POLITICO, just 45 percent of respondents said they trusted the French state to handle vaccination while 52 percent said they trusted the EU on that matter.
People are angry with Tory sleaze. Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
Are people angry? Ordinarily what these politicians have done would absolutely bury them, but in the post-fact Brexit world I'm not sure that is the case. People seem very willing to ignore/forgive all kinds of outrages by their team - whether that continues as they realise Brexit delivered them a turd in a pink ribbon rather than their promised moon on a stick remains to be seen.
You make a very good point in your last sentence, and this is one that Labour have consistently failed to understand. There is an obvious model they should pursue - the European state enterprises who so dominate large chunks of the UK economy. Explain to people that when they buy power from EDF that is Electricite de France and is owned by the French taxpayer. That Arriva Bus is Deutche Bahn owned by the German Taxpayer. That DPD parcel delivery is La Paste, again owned by the French taxpayer.
The successful model is a state owned commercial enterprise - which Ed Milliband timidly proposed in part to reform the energy market. These *cannot* become union fiefdoms which is precisely why the unreformed Labour Party won't propose them. They need to go back to the Blair reforms, divorce the unions, and start planning for fair prosperity. Or face another decade in opposition expressing faux outrage as to why people keep voting for clearly corrupt Tories over their offer of clearly corrupt Unions...
Great post.
Regarding the anger, i am responding to the focus group reports that I think @TSE posted about.
There is surely a general sense that it is “one rule for them”.
This encompasses: - Dom’s trip to Durham - cronyism and sleaze - Brexit done at the expense of small biz - Deaf ears and arrogance at the DfE - University students sent to prison cells to help university finances - Anything ever uttered by Rees-Mogg - Boris’s general mendacity
That feeling of anger - and the feeling that the Tories will spunk the “build back” on their mates - is what Keir needs to tap into.
I *hope* that is the case. For it to break through into voting intention, two things need to happen: 1. Red Wall voters drop their football scarf and stop backing Boris regardless of what he does 2. Labour to offer a genuine alternative that is radical enough to actual deliver changes but simple enough to be marketed to people sick of political moon on a stick promises.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
Wrong. You can watch netflix and prime without a license.
That's the distinction: Netflix and Prime (and Disney+) aren't live.
If you want to stream anything live, even non-BBC, that is when you need to pay the fee.
If I didn't have Sky I wouldn't pay the Licence Fee. We watch Netflix, Disney, Prime and Sky, with a bit of ITV and Channel 4 in the mix but nowhere near as much as the streaming services - the BBC is pants in comparison but the fee needs paying for to make the Sky legal which is an absurd nonsense.
I've currently got the Cricket on, on Channel 4. That's only legal with the Licence Fee despite the Licence Fee not going to Channel 4 of course.
It is quite a skill the Indian cricket commentors have....England nearly 400 ahead and they manage to go over after over, barely mentioning the batsmen or England dominant position....it reminds me of those stories of how North Korea media covered their team at the world cup.
I've always said cricket was a major reason why apartheid ended and Britain became the home of the anti-apartheid movement.
Prior to 1968 it was seen as something that really didn't affect Britain, then people saw how it discriminated against Basil D'Oliveira and it awoke something in the British soul.
Peter Oborne's book on the D'Oliveira affair is fascinating read on just how much Vorster tried to stop Basil D'Oliveira being picked and just how many racists in the MCC tried to help him.
Yes, a good example of the intertwining of politics and sport. And still most on the right say that politics must be kept out of sport, like those hyperventilating on here and elsewhere when footballers and others express support for anti-racism.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
It is not against the law to stop watching broadcast tv. No broadcast tv means you dont need a licence
I've always said cricket was a major reason why apartheid ended and Britain became the home of the anti-apartheid movement.
Prior to 1968 it was seen as something that really didn't affect Britain, then people saw how it discriminated against Basil D'Oliveira and it awoke something in the British soul.
Peter Oborne's book on the D'Oliveira affair is fascinating read on just how much Vorster tried to stop Basil D'Oliveira being picked and just how many racists in the MCC tried to help him.
It's just a shame cricket couldn't rescue Zimbabwe.
I know, plus it cost England a place in the knockout phases of the 2003 World Cup.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
Wrong. You can watch netflix and prime without a license.
That's the distinction: Netflix and Prime (and Disney+) aren't live.
If you want to stream anything live, even non-BBC, that is when you need to pay the fee.
If I didn't have Sky I wouldn't pay the Licence Fee. We watch Netflix, Disney, Prime and Sky - the BBC is pants in comparison but the fee needs paying for to make the Sky legal which is an absurd nonsense.
I've always assumed that BBC does not have a +1 service because it would mean you didn't need a licence to watch an hour later.... Anyone confirm?
IMO the real issue about boundaries is that they count registered voters rather than British citizens, which massively disadvantages areas where people move frequently, i.e. cities. People who've lived in the same place for 20 years say "Well, if they can't be bothered to register, why should they be represented?" but if you're in a series of temporary places and sofa-surfing because you're struggling to afford anywhere, then registering to vote is just not on your radar - but you're still British and your interests ought to be heard like anyone else.
It's an opinion piece and slightly hysterical in tone (photographs of savings jars? Really?), and "lose more than £100/month and you need to show you can afford it" doesn't sound that crazy to me, but maybe it's a bit intrusive and/or it will drive gambling into the unregulated sector. Perhaps the limit is too low?
In the spirit of proposing something workable without a knee jerk reaction against it, how about the Gambling Commission sets individual limits not bookies, and provides only that deposit limit to the bookie.
Advantages from a punters perspective:
More likely to be treated fairly Better data protection, poorly trained cs staff at minor bookies already have far too much documentation that enables identity theft Bookie knows less about you so less likely to realise you are a professional gambler Professional gamblers can show the GC they are not a risky client Far lower admin than having the same process with many bookies For those at risk of addiction, the GC can have an overview of what is actually happening across a range of accounts. A £100/month loss limit is meaningless as a safety net to addicts when there are hundreds of bookies to play with.
Interesting column from Colin Greenwood, bassist in the seminal, cerebral, incomparable Radiohead. I know, like me, you guys are big fans:
'It is time for the UK government to admit it didn’t do enough for the creative industries during the Brexit negotiations and look to renegotiate on the provision for touring in Europe. My country’s music is great because it scorns borders and boundaries; it is a great patriotic source, a force of confidence, joy and shared passions. I am proud of my country and all the music it has exchanged with the world, and I am sure that pride is felt across all ages and cultures in the UK. It is the antithesis of the culturally pinched nationalism that is Brexit, and its diminishment would deprive us all.'
The creative industries generally is one area where Britain remains a global power. Probably only second to the US in terms of the both the influence and hard export value.
Like auto manufacturing, chemicals, finance, agriculture and fisheries - the Tories don’t give a f***.
It is quite a skill the Indian cricket commentors have....England nearly 400 ahead and they manage to go over after over, barely mentioning the batsmen or England dominant position....it reminds me of those stories of how North Korea medis covered their team at the world cup.
Can someone get Bess out please? Batting so slowly.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
It is not against the law to stop watching broadcast tv. No broadcast tv means you dont need a licence
It is quite a skill the Indian cricket commentors have....England nearly 400 ahead and they manage to go over after over, barely mentioning the batsmen or England dominant position....it reminds me of those stories of how North Korea media covered their team at the world cup.
I did warn you all that the BCCI approved commentators are like this.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
No it isn't....if you don't watch live tv or iplayer, you don't need a licence.
It seems to me that even if a licence enforcement officer was granted entry to a unlicensed property, and was able to determine that the installed equipment was capable of receiving live TV, that remains a long way short of proving that somebody was watching live TV.
People are angry with Tory sleaze. Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
Are people angry? Ordinarily what these politicians have done would absolutely bury them, but in the post-fact Brexit world I'm not sure that is the case. People seem very willing to ignore/forgive all kinds of outrages by their team - whether that continues as they realise Brexit delivered them a turd in a pink ribbon rather than their promised moon on a stick remains to be seen.
You make a very good point in your last sentence, and this is one that Labour have consistently failed to understand. There is an obvious model they should pursue - the European state enterprises who so dominate large chunks of the UK economy. Explain to people that when they buy power from EDF that is Electricite de France and is owned by the French taxpayer. That Arriva Bus is Deutche Bahn owned by the German Taxpayer. That DPD parcel delivery is La Paste, again owned by the French taxpayer.
The successful model is a state owned commercial enterprise - which Ed Milliband timidly proposed in part to reform the energy market. These *cannot* become union fiefdoms which is precisely why the unreformed Labour Party won't propose them. They need to go back to the Blair reforms, divorce the unions, and start planning for fair prosperity. Or face another decade in opposition expressing faux outrage as to why people keep voting for clearly corrupt Tories over their offer of clearly corrupt Unions...
Great post.
Regarding the anger, i am responding to the focus group reports that I think @TSE posted about.
There is surely a general sense that it is “one rule for them”.
This encompasses: - Dom’s trip to Durham - cronyism and sleaze - Brexit done at the expense of small biz - Deaf ears and arrogance at the DfE - University students sent to prison cells to help university finances - Anything ever uttered by Rees-Mogg - Boris’s general mendacity
That feeling of anger - and the feeling that the Tories will spunk the “build back” on their mates - is what Keir needs to tap into.
I *hope* that is the case. For it to break through into voting intention, two things need to happen: 1. Red Wall voters drop their football scarf and stop backing Boris regardless of what he does 2. Labour to offer a genuine alternative that is radical enough to actual deliver changes but simple enough to be marketed to people sick of political moon on a stick promises.
Who are these university students sent to prison cells? And how does it help University finances?
Why was that delivery that went to the rope a dead ball? Why wasn't it 4 byes?
ODI it would surely have been 5 (Wide + 4)?
It hit the pad and the batsman was playing no shot. You can only score leg-byes when attempting to play the ball with the bat, or when attempting to take evasive action. (That only applies to leg-byes, ie. byes can be scored when playing no shot).
It is quite a skill the Indian cricket commentors have....England nearly 400 ahead and they manage to go over after over, barely mentioning the batsmen or England dominant position....it reminds me of those stories of how North Korea media covered their team at the world cup.
I did warn you all that the BCCI approved commentators are like this.
It is a no ball. It is the biggest, most beautiful no ball in history. It’s better than that one by Mohammed Asif, when he...ohshit, my commentary contract has just been summarily terminated by the BCCI.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
No it isn't....if you don't watch live tv or iplayer, you don't need a licence.
My issue with the licence fee these days is that it is totally unenforceable. Only idiots get caught breaking the law, as capita who enforce it have essentially no powers.
If you don't let them in, politely decline to engage with them, there is nothing they can do. And there is zero way of them establishing if you are watching live tv vs catchup if you only use internet streaming from outside your property.
Interesting column from Colin Greenwood, bassist in the seminal, cerebral, incomparable Radiohead. I know, like me, you guys are big fans:
'It is time for the UK government to admit it didn’t do enough for the creative industries during the Brexit negotiations and look to renegotiate on the provision for touring in Europe. My country’s music is great because it scorns borders and boundaries; it is a great patriotic source, a force of confidence, joy and shared passions. I am proud of my country and all the music it has exchanged with the world, and I am sure that pride is felt across all ages and cultures in the UK. It is the antithesis of the culturally pinched nationalism that is Brexit, and its diminishment would deprive us all.'
It's an opinion piece and slightly hysterical in tone (photographs of savings jars? Really?), and "lose more than £100/month and you need to show you can afford it" doesn't sound that crazy to me, but maybe it's a bit intrusive and/or it will drive gambling into the unregulated sector. Perhaps the limit is too low?
Identity and affordability checks already exist and bookmakers can ask for passports, payslips and savings accounts statements. (iirc the NCSC has questioned the safety of uploading passports.) Last year I managed to persuade a bookmaker that their demands for more and more information were becoming intrusive. (Bookmakers can be fined millions of pounds if it turns out we are betting with money pinched from our employers, and then there are money laundering regulations.)
KYC (know your customer) procedures have, you will be surprised to learn, been used to delay payments to winning customers.
£100 a month is a very low figure, especially for those who back outsiders. Follow the Pricewise tips in the Racing Post and you might make a profit in the long term but will certainly lose £100 most months.
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.
No, this is the 2020s. This is about obeying the law.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
I don't think he means that.
If you don't watch any live tv or use iplayer, you can watch as much tv as you like perfectly legally via all the catchup services, netflix, amazon prime, youtube without a licence.
It is perfectly possible in 2020 to watch tv this way. Personally I don't watch any live tv other than sport. If i didn't like sport, I wouldn't have a licence as I have no need for it.
I probably wouldn't bother, but my other half likes watching the sewing Bee, Eastenders and some other BBC stuff so we have it.
An interesting header, with which I broadly agree.
Alastair refers to "solidly Labour Brighton Kemptown" in the header, and he's right at the moment. But Labour only won it in 2017, and held it comfortably in 2019. It was Conservative from 2010-2017. Labour won it in the Blair years, but from 1970 to 1997 it was Conservative. Hove is almost exactly the same story - a once solid Conservative seat has become solid Labour over the last five years. I guess this shows Labour's dominance of the urban metropolitan types who live in Brighton/Hove (I suspect Kemptown has the largest, proportionately, gay community in the UK). But Alastair's right, non-Conservative voters are spreading out to both the east and the west, as house prices are so high in Brighton/Hove that young lefties are looking to places like Shoreham and Worthing to buy their first flats or houses.
So voting Labour is a bit like Covid: it starts in the metropolitan areas, and spreads, though not quite as virulently, to the surrounding towns and coastal strips.
Worry not: Tory donors are working on a vaccine....
They'll probably do a better job than Oxford University.
I guess Macron will be banging on about the news from South Africa.
I'm sure Macron can explain to his voters why the ancient rosbifs are now fine and dandy whilst his own crumblies are still keeling over.
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.
My father is one of those, he had a free licence and now has none but then as he said why should I? Since he has been locked down he has discovered net flix and prime courtesy of spare log ins from me and my son. He finally joined the computer age and can't now imagine watching broadcast tv
Which is of course his prerogative (not to pay the licence fee) but it is against the law as it stands.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
It is not against the law to stop watching broadcast tv. No broadcast tv means you dont need a licence
The Manchester Ship Canal is privately owned.
Yes I thought it might be as I was typing, hence added "related" to my post!
People are angry with Tory sleaze. Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
Are people angry? Ordinarily what these politicians have done would absolutely bury them, but in the post-fact Brexit world I'm not sure that is the case. People seem very willing to ignore/forgive all kinds of outrages by their team - whether that continues as they realise Brexit delivered them a turd in a pink ribbon rather than their promised moon on a stick remains to be seen.
You make a very good point in your last sentence, and this is one that Labour have consistently failed to understand. There is an obvious model they should pursue - the European state enterprises who so dominate large chunks of the UK economy. Explain to people that when they buy power from EDF that is Electricite de France and is owned by the French taxpayer. That Arriva Bus is Deutche Bahn owned by the German Taxpayer. That DPD parcel delivery is La Paste, again owned by the French taxpayer.
The successful model is a state owned commercial enterprise - which Ed Milliband timidly proposed in part to reform the energy market. These *cannot* become union fiefdoms which is precisely why the unreformed Labour Party won't propose them. They need to go back to the Blair reforms, divorce the unions, and start planning for fair prosperity. Or face another decade in opposition expressing faux outrage as to why people keep voting for clearly corrupt Tories over their offer of clearly corrupt Unions...
To which the tories surely just point at Robin hood power company which was state owned if you consider a council part of the state. The companies you mentioned may be state owned like EDF but they are competing as if private here
Exactly the idea! A state owned commercial enterprise. Its absurd that French, German, Dutch, Italian state railways companies can run trains in the UK but its illegal for a British state owned company to do so because state owned = rubbish or something.
Surely England could declare now and take the chance
I mostly agree, except that West Indies scored 395 yesterday to beat Bangladesh. I know theyre not a good side but Root probably doesnt want to risk it.
Comments
Both are wrong
England bowled one in India's first inning.
India made 337 in their first
Surely England could declare now and take the chance
On topic, I agree with Alastair's assessment. The sad thing about boundary reviews is that they have become such an obvious political football. Recent proposed changes were explicitly set out by the governing party as a way to cement its base - whether that happens in practice or not doesn't matter, the motivation was there.
This is where I could make a passionate argument for depoliticisation of the whole thing. But as it's futile I won't bother. The UK - if there is still to be a UK - needs wholesale reform from the ground up. Of which there is almost no chance.
If you don’t like it then campaign to have it changed. Don’t not pay your quasi-taxes.
Ultimately, if you don't like FPTP, argue against it, don't get hung up about an independent commission trying to produce a fair set of seats.
"Well, this chap is the brother of a former Tory MP". Hmmm.
Rachel Reeves does not have a happy history of lists. Last year she came up with a list of PPE Suppliers Who Deserve To Be Considered included the likes of a football agent and a solicitor.
There was an amusing reply from Gove.
Sky News take on Sturgeon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJMoifACsRw&feature=youtu.be
Five overs of raw pace from Archer tonight.
Then five more overs tomorrow morning with a still new ball.
Then the second new ball to come just after tea tomorrow if it’s needed.
Kier could definitely revive that tag, it will resonate.
But they don’t necessarily want a return to unreformed public sector bureaucracies of the 1970s.
DavidL confirmed upthread it’s most unlikely to result in prosecution or other sanction even if true.
But it will royally piss off the Court of Sessions which is hardly going to make them likely to offer favours to her over matters on referendums should Johnson maintain his intransigent stance on one.
And given she would need them to be extremely sympathetic to her case for it to go against the clearly stated law, that is to say the least unfortunate.
Let me give you a local example. Urgent Care was privatised and handed over to Virgin. Due to the crap service received, local GPs formed a co-operative and successfully bid to take over Urgent Care service.
This service now once again being done in-house is not it being "handed to the unions".
The biggest living cheat in sport is Lance Armstrong.
The second is therefore David Warner.
I will give you Smith third, although Lou Vincent may disagree.
By the way, what do PBers make of this?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/feb/08/gambling-affordability-checks-control-freaks-threat-civil-liberties-reform
It's an opinion piece and slightly hysterical in tone (photographs of savings jars? Really?), and "lose more than £100/month and you need to show you can afford it" doesn't sound that crazy to me, but maybe it's a bit intrusive and/or it will drive gambling into the unregulated sector. Perhaps the limit is too low?
https://twitter.com/keejayov2/status/1358554295646511104?s=21
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/55969692
2005 GE
Con: 35.7% of votes - 36.7% of seats
Lab: 35.5% of votes - 54.1% of seats
2019 GE
Con: 47.2% of votes - 64.7% of seats
Lab: 33.9% of votes - 33.6% of seats
You make a very good point in your last sentence, and this is one that Labour have consistently failed to understand. There is an obvious model they should pursue - the European state enterprises who so dominate large chunks of the UK economy. Explain to people that when they buy power from EDF that is Electricite de France and is owned by the French taxpayer. That Arriva Bus is Deutche Bahn owned by the German Taxpayer. That DPD parcel delivery is La Paste, again owned by the French taxpayer.
The successful model is a state owned commercial enterprise - which Ed Milliband timidly proposed in part to reform the energy market. These *cannot* become union fiefdoms which is precisely why the unreformed Labour Party won't propose them. They need to go back to the Blair reforms, divorce the unions, and start planning for fair prosperity. Or face another decade in opposition expressing faux outrage as to why people keep voting for clearly corrupt Tories over their offer of clearly corrupt Unions...
If you don't watch any live tv or use iplayer, you can watch as much tv as you like perfectly legally via all the catchup services, netflix, amazon prime, youtube without a licence.
It is perfectly possible in 2020 to watch tv this way. Personally I don't watch any live tv other than sport. If i didn't like sport, I wouldn't have a licence as I have no need for it.
Prior to 1968 it was seen as something that really didn't affect Britain, then people saw how it discriminated against Basil D'Oliveira and it awoke something in the British soul.
Peter Oborne's book on the D'Oliveira affair is fascinating read on just how much Vorster tried to stop Basil D'Oliveira being picked and just how many racists in the MCC tried to help him.
Then, they were chasing 328 on a bouncy pitch against the world’s fastest bowling attack.
15 more overs won’t hurt, although as I said upthread, they still need to force the win.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1358701798660452355?s=20
Alastair refers to "solidly Labour Brighton Kemptown" in the header, and he's right at the moment. But Labour only won it in 2017, and held it comfortably in 2019. It was Conservative from 2010-2017. Labour won it in the Blair years, but from 1970 to 1997 it was Conservative. Hove is almost exactly the same story - a once solid Conservative seat has become solid Labour over the last five years. I guess this shows Labour's dominance of the urban metropolitan types who live in Brighton/Hove (I suspect Kemptown has the largest, proportionately, gay community in the UK). But Alastair's right, non-Conservative voters are spreading out to both the east and the west, as house prices are so high in Brighton/Hove that young lefties are looking to places like Shoreham and Worthing to buy their first flats or houses.
So voting Labour is a bit like Covid: it starts in the metropolitan areas, and spreads, though not quite as virulently, to the surrounding towns and coastal strips.
KYC (know your customer) procedures have, you will be surprised to learn, been used to delay payments to winning customers.
£100 a month is a very low figure, especially for those who back outsiders. Follow the Pricewise tips in the Racing Post and you might make a profit in the long term but will certainly lose £100 most months.
Today is the last day to complete the Gambling Commission survey.
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/author/remote-customer-interaction-consultation-and-call/
They've gone from 241/3 to 268/9.
I also agree that it is ludicrous to have to pay the LF to watch live sport on, say, Sky. But that is how the law stands and the law should change.
I mean I haven't used the Manchester Ship Canal but I daresay some fraction of my taxes goes on its or related upkeep.
Perhaps show there is law breaking going on before accusing. People have been opting out of the licence fee in numbers ever since streaming became a thing
Regarding the anger, i am responding to the focus group reports that I think @TSE posted about.
There is surely a general sense that it is “one rule for them”.
This encompasses:
- Dom’s trip to Durham
- cronyism and sleaze
- Brexit done at the expense of small biz
- Deaf ears and arrogance at the DfE
- University students sent to prison cells to help university finances
- Anything ever uttered by Rees-Mogg
- Boris’s general mendacity
That feeling of anger - and the feeling that the Tories will spunk the “build back” on their mates - is what Keir needs to tap into.
'It is time for the UK government to admit it didn’t do enough for the creative industries during the Brexit negotiations and look to renegotiate on the provision for touring in Europe. My country’s music is great because it scorns borders and boundaries; it is a great patriotic source, a force of confidence, joy and shared passions. I am proud of my country and all the music it has exchanged with the world, and I am sure that pride is felt across all ages and cultures in the UK. It is the antithesis of the culturally pinched nationalism that is Brexit, and its diminishment would deprive us all.'
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/feb/08/european-touring-radiohead-brexit-colin-greenwood
I was referring to empowering the unions and a large increase in public sector employment
I guess Macron will be banging on about the news from South Africa.
You missed out ‘bucolic stupidity, greed and dishonesty.’
In a Harris Interactive/Euros Agency poll, obtained exclusively by POLITICO, just 45 percent of respondents said they trusted the French state to handle vaccination while 52 percent said they trusted the EU on that matter.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-trust-eu-more-than-french-government-on-coronavirus-vaccine/
1. Red Wall voters drop their football scarf and stop backing Boris regardless of what he does
2. Labour to offer a genuine alternative that is radical enough to actual deliver changes but simple enough to be marketed to people sick of political moon on a stick promises.
If you want to stream anything live, even non-BBC, that is when you need to pay the fee.
If I didn't have Sky I wouldn't pay the Licence Fee. We watch Netflix, Disney, Prime and Sky, with a bit of ITV and Channel 4 in the mix but nowhere near as much as the streaming services - the BBC is pants in comparison but the fee needs paying for to make the Sky legal which is an absurd nonsense.
I've currently got the Cricket on, on Channel 4. That's only legal with the Licence Fee despite the Licence Fee not going to Channel 4 of course.
Advantages from a punters perspective:
More likely to be treated fairly
Better data protection, poorly trained cs staff at minor bookies already have far too much documentation that enables identity theft
Bookie knows less about you so less likely to realise you are a professional gambler
Professional gamblers can show the GC they are not a risky client
Far lower admin than having the same process with many bookies
For those at risk of addiction, the GC can have an overview of what is actually happening across a range of accounts. A £100/month loss limit is meaningless as a safety net to addicts when there are hundreds of bookies to play with.
Like auto manufacturing, chemicals, finance, agriculture and fisheries - the Tories don’t give a f***.
ODI it would surely have been 5 (Wide + 4)?
Put a modest tax on internet and mobile data.
Job done.
https://twitter.com/brianwhelanhack/status/1358706628686716928?s=21
If you don't let them in, politely decline to engage with them, there is nothing they can do. And there is zero way of them establishing if you are watching live tv vs catchup if you only use internet streaming from outside your property.
Yes I appreciate that if you don't watch live tv you don't need to pay the LF.
Just out of interest, is, say, Sky News "live tv"?