Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
TBH in Conservative terms the example probably would be Dave kicking Boris' ass, I can't imagine it would actually be too welcome in reality...
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
"In Labour circle" and "in the country" are too very different things though.
Labour are to the left of the country. If you're to the left of Labour, then of course you're even further to the left of the country. If you're in the right of Labour, then you're still in the left overall.
Its like arguing between shades of red. You can have rose, crimson and blood red. Starmer's Labour may be rose red, while Corbyn's blood red might say they're a deeper shade of red - that doesn't make those who prefer rose red are actually wanting blue.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
I did suggest Mr Thompson would not be alone. You do forget I am a raging heretic Communist, so it is certainly balanced for me.
To be honest you should be more outraged that there were virtually no punctuation marks in my post. On reflection, surely that is worse than my being Stalin and liking C4 News.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
If the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Also, this somewhat ties in with right wing Labour...
They are kind of like UKIP in that their huge vote tallies pushed their former party towards them, I mean you can hold onto ideology but you can't find that kind of popularity.
Edit: In reference to the twitter response to Starmer's speech it was quite amusing...
The positive quote tweets to his speech consisted almost completely of people actually employed by the Labour party or the fabians. I counted 3 that weren't and one of those was Tom Watson, one of the others was mildly critical and positive.
There was one positive quote tweet from someone not paid and not Tom Watson!
I can see your point about votes received showing popularity however the expectation in 2017 was that Labour had no chance so noone needed to critically assess the costs of their manifesto. Any tax rises identified certainly didn't cover the full outlay and did not allow for people changing their behaviour related to rising taxes.
The other flaw in the argument / system is that the pool of votes received by Corbyn whilst large was too concentrated in certain areas that Labour racked up masses of votes for example in Bristol West which was previously a marginal is now very safe labour (green in second). In a constituency system this means that combined with the votes received by labour across the south in areas where they are third this actually gives the Tories an easy ride. The strange thing is this has nothing to do with how valid any arguments are or how effective they would be, but a quirk in the system which discourages extremes
Surely the key question for Labour members isn't where politically is Starmer, but where politically are the millions of votes they need to recover? Most voters consider themselves in the centre ground - and that includes most Labour / Tory supporters who abhor the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
I can understand the howls of anguish from Labour's left that "not enough was done by the Blair government" because its clearly true. However, the reality check has to be that you can't win an election by promising to go much further as the votes aren't there. Unless you are elected into office you can't actually do anything, regardless f how righteous you may believe your cause to be.
Whether Starmer is left or right is a distraction from the real question of "is he any good". I'm not sure the Labour Party is leadable at the moment, anyone would struggle in the job. Keith though seems to be missing any real political antennae, and that ultimately is why he will fail.
When people look back on this albeit extraordinary period of time there foggy memory might be "oh yes the bloke that agreed with the government about everything".
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
During an emergency. Sounds like a reasonable chap.
We shall see. Once the immediacy of this has passed, perhaps an enquiry or a narrative emerges of the govt f*cking it up, perhaps an almighty f*ck up is identified (care homes anyone?) then Lab will have been the Opposition that supported it all.
Sorry, but you really haven't been listening/reading. Labour has been highly critical of many aspects of government crisis policy and the ensuing high death rate. Locking down too late in March, November and January. Easing too many restrictions too quickly back in May. Poorly targeted financial support for self-employed. Not enough financial help for self-isolation. Lucrative contracts for mates. Poor controls at the border. Not enough localised track and trace. I could go on.
Where Labour hasn't been critical is over the broad thrust of policy: the way to reduce and then get rid of the virus is through severely restricting social interactions and then through vaccination. And that's because Labour (rightly) agrees with this approach to reducing Covid.
They are the opposition. They should oppose the government. On everything. Everything the Conservative government does could be done better by a Labour government. Should be their line. Even Jezza got this.
If the govt wants unanimity then assemble a GNU.
No opposition has ever opposed the government on everything, especially in times of war.
Cameron didn't oppose everything Labour did. Blair didn't oppose everything the Tories did. It is right to waive through uncontroversial stuff and pick your battles.
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
If Labour right continue to fail to match 2017 performance then the electoral argument favours a leader from the left. Arguably if Labour want to win it should mean they chose a leader from the left of the party.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
For some reason when I read the article on my phone it didn't show who the author was. Now I know it's yours Richard, it was an excellent article and I agree with you completely.
This is a very dangerous idea. Simply linking to a site should never be charged. If it was a charge for copying and pasting that would be fair enough but that's not the case.
It's bizarre because news sites should be wanting lots of links to their news articles. I don't even understand what the proposed charge is trying to achieve.
One thing that I notice about most news websites is that they understand the power of links and they minimise outbound links.
So, if you have a Guardian article about any ONS statistics you will very rarely, if ever, see a link to the statistical release on the ONS website. They know that they don't want to boost the ONS in the search rankings by linking to them.
This demonstrates how important inbound links are. Why would you want to charge for them?
You're right about the lack of links. It can be quite annoying as it seems absurd not to link to say a government report if reporting on it, but they usually dont.
I find it incredibly frustrating, but I can see why a newspaper wouldn't want to encourage its readers to go directly to the ONS. They want their readers to continue to rely on them as an intermediary.
We had an example of that last night with the argument over where was the warmest and sunniest place in the UK, where people were sharing links to newspaper articles instead of going directly to the data source at the Met Office.
One of the great advantages of the web is that you can cut out the intermediary and go directly to the source.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
Looking at the answers with a significant gap between the two men, it seems people would like to go out for a night out with Boris while Sir Keir stays in and assembles their flat pack furniture
SKS as a practical baby-sitter.
Boris? "Legend....."
I suppose it depends on one's idea of organising a fun night out. I doubt Starmer would have the slightest idea where to go to procure hookers and class A drugs.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
I'm hoping GB News won't have Sean Hannity either.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
If Labour right continue to fail to match 2017 performance then the electoral argument favours a leader from the left. Arguably if Labour want to win it should mean they chose a leader from the left of the party.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
Or since Starmer is still very far to the left of the nation if he loses then it means Starmer wasn't right enough.
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
If Labour right continue to fail to match 2017 performance then the electoral argument favours a leader from the left. Arguably if Labour want to win it should mean they chose a leader from the left of the party.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
This was thrown together late last night so I was relying mostly in my own immediate knowledge (I spent a lot of time looking at this a couple of years ago) and, ironically, a quick google to check my facts.
Sadly further research this morning has shown that in fact the EU Parliament has passed the Copyright Directive including the 'link tax' and 'meme ban'. It will effectively come into force in the EU in June 2021.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
I'm hoping GB News won't have Sean Hannity either.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
Agreed, but I don't count the odious Tom from Guido as a mirror image of Jon Snow
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
If Labour right continue to fail to match 2017 performance then the electoral argument favours a leader from the left. Arguably if Labour want to win it should mean they chose a leader from the left of the party.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
Take heart that this current government is spending like Corbyn wanted to. Also many of the policies were taken from Corbyns manifesto of 2017. However he was an easy target to hit due to his history. So be happy with Johnson, as it seems you are.
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
I'm hoping GB News won't have Sean Hannity either.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
Agreed, but I don't count the odious Tom from Guido as a mirror image of Jon Snow
You're right, he's more of a measured centrist than Jon Snow. 😉
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
I'm hoping GB News won't have Sean Hannity either.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
Actually no - C4 news is 1 hour a day maximum.
GB News is 24/7 which means its going to have to create news to fill the space it needs to fill.
C4 news has little need to create stories to fill the space it's got.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
TBH in Conservative terms the example probably would be Dave kicking Boris' ass, I can't imagine it would actually be too welcome in reality...
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
"In Labour circle" and "in the country" are too very different things though.
Labour are to the left of the country. If you're to the left of Labour, then of course you're even further to the left of the country. If you're in the right of Labour, then you're still in the left overall.
Its like arguing between shades of red. You can have rose, crimson and blood red. Starmer's Labour may be rose red, while Corbyn's blood red might say they're a deeper shade of red - that doesn't make those who prefer rose red are actually wanting blue.
I'm pretty sure most of my posts have claimed Starmer as representing the right of Labour, so still red but some very pale shade, I mean you could argue about the parties stretching to centrist but my main claim has been Starmer represents the right of Labour (not the right of the country) and that it is electorally on that part of Labour if he does worse than the left of Labour.
Also if we can make the argument part of Labour is extreme far left on the basis of political positioning, it is the left party thus its left is extreme far left, can't we make that same argument with the Tories? they are right thus their right is extreme far right?
South Africa is currently recording below the global average in reported Covid cases, variant, end of their summer, and all. It’s also spooky to me how recorded cases in two very different countries, indeed in much of the globe, peaked on almost the same day - January 13 or thereabouts
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
I'm hoping GB News won't have Sean Hannity either.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
Which is Andrew Neil. Who I am sure has been on TV once or twice before.
I'm not sure what problem the Australian government is trying to solve? If I post a link to a paywalled site and friends follow it that's "free advertising" for the paywalled site. A non-paywalled site presumably has a business model that relies on the adverts that clutter news stories for revenue - again I'm providing them with "free advertising". I can understand news outlets objecting to me copy & pasting an entire news article - here the FT gets round that elegantly by reminding you of their T&C and automatically providing a link to any text. Much as I think Facebook has some pretty dodgy practices, extorting them for providing free advertising seems dodgier still.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
TBH in Conservative terms the example probably would be Dave kicking Boris' ass, I can't imagine it would actually be too welcome in reality...
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
"In Labour circle" and "in the country" are too very different things though.
Labour are to the left of the country. If you're to the left of Labour, then of course you're even further to the left of the country. If you're in the right of Labour, then you're still in the left overall.
Its like arguing between shades of red. You can have rose, crimson and blood red. Starmer's Labour may be rose red, while Corbyn's blood red might say they're a deeper shade of red - that doesn't make those who prefer rose red are actually wanting blue.
I'm pretty sure most of my posts have claimed Starmer as representing the right of Labour, so still red but some very pale shade, I mean you could argue about the parties stretching to centrist but my main claim has been Starmer represents the right of Labour (not the right of the country) and that it is electorally on that part of Labour if he does worse than the left of Labour.
Also if we can make the argument part of Labour is extreme far left on the basis of political positioning, it is the left party thus its left is extreme far left, can't we make that same argument with the Tories? they are right thus their right is extreme far right?
Yes we sort of can. When Tories pander to their extremes like electing IDS then the Tories lose.
Parties that pander to their base tend to lose in this nation, parties that target the voters win.
Though the Tories expel the extreme far right so they're not in the party. Labour have let the extreme far left squat in Labour for decades.
South Africa is currently recording below the global average in reported Covid cases, variant, end of their summer, and all. It’s also spooky to me how recorded cases in two very different countries, indeed in much of the globe, peaked on almost the same day - January 13 or thereabouts
And suggests neither curve has much to do with vaccination, which in Sth Africa only started two days ago
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
South Africa is currently recording below the global average in reported Covid cases, variant, end of their summer, and all. It’s also spooky to me how recorded cases in two very different countries, indeed in much of the globe, peaked on almost the same day - January 13 or thereabouts
And suggests neither curve has much to do with vaccination, which in Sth Africa only started two days ago
I don't see how you can say that. Our descent is much more rapid than South Africa's.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
If the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Also, this somewhat ties in with right wing Labour...
They are kind of like UKIP in that their huge vote tallies pushed their former party towards them, I mean you can hold onto ideology but you can't find that kind of popularity.
Edit: In reference to the twitter response to Starmer's speech it was quite amusing...
The positive quote tweets to his speech consisted almost completely of people actually employed by the Labour party or the fabians. I counted 3 that weren't and one of those was Tom Watson, one of the others was mildly critical and positive.
There was one positive quote tweet from someone not paid and not Tom Watson!
I can see your point about votes received showing popularity however the expectation in 2017 was that Labour had no chance so noone needed to critically assess the costs of their manifesto. Any tax rises identified certainly didn't cover the full outlay and did not allow for people changing their behaviour related to rising taxes.
The other flaw in the argument / system is that the pool of votes received by Corbyn whilst large was too concentrated in certain areas that Labour racked up masses of votes for example in Bristol West which was previously a marginal is now very safe labour (green in second). In a constituency system this means that combined with the votes received by labour across the south in areas where they are third this actually gives the Tories an easy ride. The strange thing is this has nothing to do with how valid any arguments are or how effective they would be, but a quirk in the system which discourages extremes
This would be a good argument if all the extra votes did rack up in safe seats but that wasn't actually the case at all, Labour did win a number of seats in 2017 because of the extra votes they won, along with that they did become more competitive in a lot of parliamentary seats, which no doesn't immediately pay off but if you can take a good 2nd place in a seat then you may have a chance of taking it in future.
12,878,460 2017
9,347,273 2015
A number of those extra 3,500,000(ish) votes won by a left wing Labour party did go into useless seats Labour already hold just giving super majorities, but I'd be surprised if it was anymore than a few hundred thousand in total wasted topping up completely safe seats. You only get so many people voting in each seat and they were already safe so the increase is quite small per seat.
South Africa is currently recording below the global average in reported Covid cases, variant, end of their summer, and all. It’s also spooky to me how recorded cases in two very different countries, indeed in much of the globe, peaked on almost the same day - January 13 or thereabouts
And suggests neither curve has much to do with vaccination, which in Sth Africa only started two days ago
I don't see how you can say that. Our descent is much more rapid than South Africa's.
It's an arithmetic scale and we're a bigger country. To judge a descent you'd need logarithmic.
Both countries are pretty much back to where they were in early December (actually both marginally lower)
I think the Australian government was trying to ensure that quality journalism can still raise revenues via social media platforms but went about it in the wrong way
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
Very interesting article. I'm not sure we know enough yet, and secondly, the law and common sense have not yet caught up with a cataclysmic new reality.
It seems to me that the questions that need considering can begin with the pub.
Scenes:
We are in the pub and have a political conversation and Alf says he's read an article in his hard copy New Statesman and it's worth looking at. You go out and buy a copy/he lends you his copy.
Ditto and he summarises it verbally.
Ditto and you photocopy his NS
Ditto and you do 100 copies and give them to your friends
Ditto and you sell then copies.
Ditto but you copy the article from link on Facebook.
These examples can be multiplied for ever.
In the UK what is legal and what illegal among these examples is legislated for, and some industries (sheet music publishing for example) have been pretty good at enforcing it.
The current internet law has many problems. Among them are the scale and unenforceability of any provisions whatever and the fact that platforms which in the old days would be publishers (like hard copy New Statesman) are now subject to laws as if they were private phone calls, even though there is a potential audience of billions.
In Richard Tyndall's article he instances how governments are wanting to stop the equivalent of pub conversation. I'm not convinced. PB discussion as such is unaffected. I think they are struggling to find a way to prevent the appropriation of property the same as if I do thousands of copies of the NS and don't pay for them, while sometimes making money out of it myself.
I would agree if the law was regarding copying the article. It is not. It is about linking to it. As such, if applied in the same way to PB it would not just affect those posting excerpts from articles but would apply to any link at all.
Part of the new reality is that even if only in a small way a link is a particular property which goes further than saying to friends in a pub 'Look at the article in my New Statesman', because it renders it more easily accessible to billions of people. I am sure the Australians have got it wrong, but the question is how to get it right.
It's new because in the olden days of a few years ago if your book referred in a footnote to another book it didn't and couldn't give you immediate access to it. You had to buy it or borrow it. This is still the case with vast amounts of published material. Linking is somewhere between a footnote and a republication. As such it may require new regulation. Governments will struggle.
South Africa is currently recording below the global average in reported Covid cases, variant, end of their summer, and all. It’s also spooky to me how recorded cases in two very different countries, indeed in much of the globe, peaked on almost the same day - January 13 or thereabouts
And suggests neither curve has much to do with vaccination, which in Sth Africa only started two days ago
I don't see how you can say that. Our descent is much more rapid than South Africa's.
It's an arithmetic scale and we're a bigger country. To judge a descent you'd need logarithmic.
Both countries are pretty much back to where they were in early December (actually both marginally lower)
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
If Labour right continue to fail to match 2017 performance then the electoral argument favours a leader from the left. Arguably if Labour want to win it should mean they chose a leader from the left of the party.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
Or since Starmer is still very far to the left of the nation if he loses then it means Starmer wasn't right enough.
When he does worse than Jezza whilst being to the right of him that isn't going to make a very convincing argument.
People aren't going to vote for Starmer because he is too right wing, like me. Going more right wing will not solve his problem of people not voting for him for being too right wing. It will make it worse.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
TBH in Conservative terms the example probably would be Dave kicking Boris' ass, I can't imagine it would actually be too welcome in reality...
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
"In Labour circle" and "in the country" are too very different things though.
Labour are to the left of the country. If you're to the left of Labour, then of course you're even further to the left of the country. If you're in the right of Labour, then you're still in the left overall.
Its like arguing between shades of red. You can have rose, crimson and blood red. Starmer's Labour may be rose red, while Corbyn's blood red might say they're a deeper shade of red - that doesn't make those who prefer rose red are actually wanting blue.
I'm pretty sure most of my posts have claimed Starmer as representing the right of Labour, so still red but some very pale shade, I mean you could argue about the parties stretching to centrist but my main claim has been Starmer represents the right of Labour (not the right of the country) and that it is electorally on that part of Labour if he does worse than the left of Labour.
Also if we can make the argument part of Labour is extreme far left on the basis of political positioning, it is the left party thus its left is extreme far left, can't we make that same argument with the Tories? they are right thus their right is extreme far right?
Yes we sort of can. When Tories pander to their extremes like electing IDS then the Tories lose.
Parties that pander to their base tend to lose in this nation, parties that target the voters win.
Though the Tories expel the extreme far right so they're not in the party. Labour have let the extreme far left squat in Labour for decades.
IDS never lost a general election and probably would have done at least as well as Howard did in 2005. Thatcher won 3 general elections from the right.
Yes, leaders also need to win the centre too, see Cameron and Blair but leaders who only target the centre and lose their base can also lose, see the LDs in 2015 or May's Tories in early 2019 if their base also has an alternative party to go to
Surely the key question for Labour members isn't where politically is Starmer, but where politically are the millions of votes they need to recover? Most voters consider themselves in the centre ground - and that includes most Labour / Tory supporters who abhor the extremes at either end of the political spectrum.
I can understand the howls of anguish from Labour's left that "not enough was done by the Blair government" because its clearly true. However, the reality check has to be that you can't win an election by promising to go much further as the votes aren't there. Unless you are elected into office you can't actually do anything, regardless f how righteous you may believe your cause to be.
Whether Starmer is left or right is a distraction from the real question of "is he any good". I'm not sure the Labour Party is leadable at the moment, anyone would struggle in the job. Keith though seems to be missing any real political antennae, and that ultimately is why he will fail.
When people look back on this albeit extraordinary period of time there foggy memory might be "oh yes the bloke that agreed with the government about everything".
To then branch out with a differentiating policy platform (whether it actually is or not) will be seen in the context of them having voted with the government multiple times previously.
During an emergency. Sounds like a reasonable chap.
We shall see. Once the immediacy of this has passed, perhaps an enquiry or a narrative emerges of the govt f*cking it up, perhaps an almighty f*ck up is identified (care homes anyone?) then Lab will have been the Opposition that supported it all.
Sorry, but you really haven't been listening/reading. Labour has been highly critical of many aspects of government crisis policy and the ensuing high death rate. Locking down too late in March, November and January. Easing too many restrictions too quickly back in May. Poorly targeted financial support for self-employed. Not enough financial help for self-isolation. Lucrative contracts for mates. Poor controls at the border. Not enough localised track and trace. I could go on.
Where Labour hasn't been critical is over the broad thrust of policy: the way to reduce and then get rid of the virus is through severely restricting social interactions and then through vaccination. And that's because Labour (rightly) agrees with this approach to reducing Covid.
They are the opposition. They should oppose the government. On everything. Everything the Conservative government does could be done better by a Labour government. Should be their line. Even Jezza got this.
If the govt wants unanimity then assemble a GNU.
That's bonkers. So, for example, Labour should have opposed the Tories' introduction of gay marriage? Whatever.
I'm not sure what problem the Australian government is trying to solve? If I post a link to a paywalled site and friends follow it that's "free advertising" for the paywalled site. A non-paywalled site presumably has a business model that relies on the adverts that clutter news stories for revenue - again I'm providing them with "free advertising". I can understand news outlets objecting to me copy & pasting an entire news article - here the FT gets round that elegantly by reminding you of their T&C and automatically providing a link to any text. Much as I think Facebook has some pretty dodgy practices, extorting them for providing free advertising seems dodgier still.
The problem
- Traditional Australian Media (TAM) is seeing a vast reduction in advertising revenue. - TAM is seeing a vast reduction in people paying for content. - TAM is politically plugged in Australia - Murdoch etc. - Farcebook and Google are making zillions in advertising revenue. - Farcebook and Google don't pay much tax in Australia.
The attempted fix
- Farcebook and Google are made to give money to TAM.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Indeed. The global scale of it makes the numbers quite astonishing, you only need 10m subscribers at $100/mo to turn over $12bn a year. They'll likely get that, just in North America within a few months. The premium users probably add a couple more billion, for little additional effort.
They're throwing these satellites up for way less than $1m a piece, thanks to reusable rockets, the whole thing is going to be a huge money-spinner for SpaceX so there's really no need to rock the boat.
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
TBH in Conservative terms the example probably would be Dave kicking Boris' ass, I can't imagine it would actually be too welcome in reality...
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
"In Labour circle" and "in the country" are too very different things though.
Labour are to the left of the country. If you're to the left of Labour, then of course you're even further to the left of the country. If you're in the right of Labour, then you're still in the left overall.
Its like arguing between shades of red. You can have rose, crimson and blood red. Starmer's Labour may be rose red, while Corbyn's blood red might say they're a deeper shade of red - that doesn't make those who prefer rose red are actually wanting blue.
I'm pretty sure most of my posts have claimed Starmer as representing the right of Labour, so still red but some very pale shade, I mean you could argue about the parties stretching to centrist but my main claim has been Starmer represents the right of Labour (not the right of the country) and that it is electorally on that part of Labour if he does worse than the left of Labour.
Also if we can make the argument part of Labour is extreme far left on the basis of political positioning, it is the left party thus its left is extreme far left, can't we make that same argument with the Tories? they are right thus their right is extreme far right?
Yes we sort of can. When Tories pander to their extremes like electing IDS then the Tories lose.
Parties that pander to their base tend to lose in this nation, parties that target the voters win.
Though the Tories expel the extreme far right so they're not in the party. Labour have let the extreme far left squat in Labour for decades.
IDS never lost a general election and probably would have done at least as well as Howard did in 2005. Thatcher won 3 general elections from the right.
Yes, leaders also need to win the centre too, see Cameron and Blair but leaders who only target the centre and lose their base can also lose, see the LDs in 2015 or May's Tories in early 2019 if their base also has an alternative party to go to
Thatcher was to the right but she also targeted the centre. She moved the centre be her right.
She remade the country to be to the right of where it was and brought the public with her. That's the difference.
Thatcher would never have succeeded without policies like Right To Buy. By introducing Right To Buy she transformed and brought people on the journey with her.
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
If Labour right continue to fail to match 2017 performance then the electoral argument favours a leader from the left. Arguably if Labour want to win it should mean they chose a leader from the left of the party.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
Labour has had a leader from the left the last 3 general elections, Ed Miliband in 2015 and Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 and lost each time.
On the latest Redfield and Wilton poll the gap is already down to the 2% seen in 2017
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
I'm hoping GB News won't have Sean Hannity either.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
Agreed, but I don't count the odious Tom from Guido as a mirror image of Jon Snow
You're right, he's more of a measured centrist than Jon Snow. 😉
Off topic
P.S. For the record I don't think it was me who off-topiced you. I did give your post a like as you cut me dead in my tracks with your pithy reply.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
Forget God. Will it make him richer than Bezos?
Providing internet to the world - I would have thought so.
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
Uber are worse than Facebook in the list of scummy companies. They lost $6bn last year, while treating everyone like dirt and ruining several industries in the process.
The whole food delivery app business is hilarious in operation from a business perspective - there's simply no way to make money delivering food for free, but tens of billions of dollars of VC capital seem to think it's possible.
South Africa is currently recording below the global average in reported Covid cases, variant, end of their summer, and all. It’s also spooky to me how recorded cases in two very different countries, indeed in much of the globe, peaked on almost the same day - January 13 or thereabouts
And suggests neither curve has much to do with vaccination, which in Sth Africa only started two days ago
I really don’t know what to think. Obsessive Google searching of “why are global cases falling” has told me that the medics generally think it is down to increase compliance with NPIs. Which may be true but doesn’t quite “feel” right given that compliance is by no means uniform across countries, let alone globally. Whatever the reason long may it continue.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
Forget God. Will it make him richer than Bezos?
He's already worth ~ $200 billion (Depending on Tesla's frankly overvalued stock price), which is a smidgen more than Bezos. Starlink can make him REALLY rich though. Like Mars colonisation rich.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
Forget God. Will it make him richer than Bezos?
Looking at Tesla's current share price, he's pretty much there already!
@HYUFD You've picked the best poll for Labour there, one that could well be an outlier.
In fairness I like an outlier poll as well but it is the one that has Starmer's Labour on the same score as 2019 Labour and many points behind 2017 Labour.
Ed himself is left of the Blairites (probably somewhere in the centre of Labour party IMO) but he was driven by the right wing ghouls filling his cabinet so the end result was not a Labour left led party in GE 2015.
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
Uber are worse than Facebook in the list of scummy companies. They lost $6bn last year, while treating everyone like dirt and ruining several industries in the process.
The whole food delivery app business is hilarious in operation from a business perspective - there's simply no way to make money delivering food for free, but tens of billions of dollars of VC capital seem to think it's possible.
They don't do it for free by any means.
Last I saw they were taking about 30% of the ticket price of the order, plus a delivery charge often too.
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
I'm very curious as to how that's going to work with VAT.
Uber was using the basis that the driver was paid directly to avoid charging VAT on the journey and there is already a major case regarding that and this decision definitely impacts it.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
Forget God. Will it make him richer than Bezos?
He's already worth ~ $200 billion (Depending on Tesla's frankly overvalued stock price), which is a smidgen more than Bezos. Starlink can make him REALLY rich though. Like Mars colonisation rich.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
Forget God. Will it make him richer than Bezos?
Providing internet to the world - I would have thought so.
He seems like an absolute cock, but he definitely seems more interesting and at least potentially transformative for people than a Zuckerberg type.
Hmm. I am not sure that is a well argued case from Fullfact since they seem to be conflating vehicle movements with exports. They even quote the 99% of normal figure for lorry movements as if that supports the idea that exports are back to 99% of normal. Poorly thought out I would suggest.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
Uber are worse than Facebook in the list of scummy companies. They lost $6bn last year, while treating everyone like dirt and ruining several industries in the process.
The whole food delivery app business is hilarious in operation from a business perspective - there's simply no way to make money delivering food for free, but tens of billions of dollars of VC capital seem to think it's possible.
I feel sorry for many of the drivers who don't realise all those hidden costs they are accruing and if you are able to properly optimize your working hourly to maximize returns and calculate your real hourly, you probably vastly over qualified to be an Uber driver.
But i get why Uber is so popular as a consumer. Good app, cheaper than a normal taxi.
As for food delivery business, that is something i don't get. It really expensive for the consumer, while relying on slave labour and still not making money.
Hmm. I am not sure that is a well argued case from Fullfact since they seem to be conflating vehicle movements with exports. They even quote the 99% of normal figure for lorry movements as if that supports the idea that exports are back to 99% of normal. Poorly thought out I would suggest.
better to wait a few months and do a more rigorous analysis.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Starlink will make Musk richer than god when it IPOs.
Forget God. Will it make him richer than Bezos?
He's already worth ~ $200 billion (Depending on Tesla's frankly overvalued stock price), which is a smidgen more than Bezos. Starlink can make him REALLY rich though. Like Mars colonisation rich.
It's interesting how the rich list has really been pretty stable for years, but Bezos and Musk's wealth has really exploded in the last 5 years or so I think.
Mr. Ace, must admit I'm not familiar with the terms Cd or CI.
My knowledge of engineering is somewhere between minimal and comical.
Coefficient of drag, coefficient of lift.
In general high lift airfoil surfaces generate more drag.
F1 wants to maximise lift even though the 'lift' is being applied downward to increase N in F=μN and thereby grip at the tyre. They will accept increased drag to get it because F1 lap times are made in the corners.
Indy wants to minimise drag and will accept less lift (downforce) to get it.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
The aim is to create a trillion dollar, global service provider.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
Indeed. The global scale of it makes the numbers quite astonishing, you only need 10m subscribers at $100/mo to turn over $12bn a year. They'll likely get that, just in North America within a few months. The premium users probably add a couple more billion, for little additional effort.
They're throwing these satellites up for way less than $1m a piece, thanks to reusable rockets, the whole thing is going to be a huge money-spinner for SpaceX so there's really no need to rock the boat.
Crazy point - it is just a side business. Musk originally thought that with cheap launch someone else would be making cheap satellites.
But the traditional satellite makers were more like the Oxford boat builders* - they didn't want to change.
So he setup yet another business - Starlink.
And the whole point is the money to go to Mars - hence his plans to IPO and get the money as soon as he can.
*Rowing eights etc. They hand built, slowly. So China etc ate their lunch and their boat houses are often flats now....
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
And this posting from you eloquently explains your earlier response to the article at the start of this thread. You have no interest in the practical implications of these new laws on the internet or on the ability to disseminate news freely. You just hate Facebook because of their privacy and tax issues.
Now that is a perfectly valid view to hold but it does rather undermine any arguments you might make regarding the value of the Australian laws and their malign impact on the wider internet.
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
Uber are worse than Facebook in the list of scummy companies. They lost $6bn last year, while treating everyone like dirt and ruining several industries in the process.
The whole food delivery app business is hilarious in operation from a business perspective - there's simply no way to make money delivering food for free, but tens of billions of dollars of VC capital seem to think it's possible.
They don't do it for free by any means.
Last I saw they were taking about 30% of the ticket price of the order, plus a delivery charge often too.
It looks 'free' or a nominal charge to the consumer, but they're taking a large cut (30% as you say) from the restaurant. Restaurants can live with that as a promotion, but not on a permanent basis, and many are moving away from these platforms as a result. With a number of competing platforms looking for market share, they're also spending big money on traditional advertising, marketing and promotions of their own, to the point that they're all losing vast amounts of cash. It's a totally unsustainable business model - unless you've a monopoly and can dictate prices.
@HYUFD You've picked the best poll for Labour there, one that could well be an outlier.
In fairness I like an outlier poll as well but it is the one that has Starmer's Labour on the same score as 2019 Labour and many points behind 2017 Labour.
Ed himself is left of the Blairites (probably somewhere in the centre of Labour party IMO) but he was driven by the right wing ghouls filling his cabinet so the end result was not a Labour left led party in GE 2015.
Ed Miliband was the leftwing candidate in 2010 against his brother David who was the candidate of the Labour right in the final round, Starmer in 2019 is the first candidate from the Labour right to win a contested Labour leadership election since Blair in 1994 (Brown being unopposed in 2007)
And this posting from you eloquently explains your earlier response to the article at the start of this thread. You have no interest in the practical implications of these new laws on the internet or on the ability to disseminate news freely. You just hate Facebook because of their privacy and tax issues.
Now that is a perfectly valid view to hold but it does rather undermine any arguments you might make regarding the value of the Australian laws and their malign impact on the wider internet.
No it's a slightly different point I'm making. My earlier one was a very valid rebuttal to your skewed ultra-libertarian, but ultimately misguided, viewpoint.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
No, I think Johnson is the type to have a wingman, someone like Oliver Dowden to cover his debts, so a good call. Starmer would neither a lender or a borrower be.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
I'm also not persuaded that Boris is more likely than Keir to buy a round for his friends at the pub. He would offer, then harrumph and announce he's forgotten his wallet, can somebody lend me £50?
A bizarre thread attempting to defend the indefensible. Facebook is a disgusting organisation which, and this is the most bizarre aspect of RT's one-sided thread, constantly data mines to invade and intrude into personal privacy. One of its most egregious examples is in its new data privacy invasion rules on WhatsApp, which Facebook owns.
Let's be clear about this. It has nothing to do with freedom. It has everything to do with profit. The more Facebook can invade your privacy, the more it can manipulate what you see, when you see it, and what you can be coerced into buying. Facebook and Google are duopolies controlling around 65% of your access to the news and where a monopoly exists you can be certain that there your freedom and right to access any news you like ... ends.
As I say, a bizarre article. Richard has pinned his ultra-libertarian ideals to the wrong mast.
For anyone who missed my earlier rebuttal of Richard's lopsided article.
Mr. Ace, must admit I'm not familiar with the terms Cd or CI.
My knowledge of engineering is somewhere between minimal and comical.
Coefficient of drag, coefficient of lift.
In general high lift airfoil surfaces generate more drag.
F1 wants to maximise lift even though the 'lift' is being applied downward to increase N in F=μN and thereby grip at the tyre. They will accept increased drag to get it because F1 lap times are made in the corners.
Indy wants to minimise drag and will accept less lift (downforce) to get it.
Indeed. Most pictures of Indy cars are equivalent of Monza-spec F1 cars, with almost no downforce. Most F1 cars are pictured with heavy aero, for 5g cornering and braking. A 'road course' Indy car looks a little more like an F3 car, with primitive aero surfaces.
The '22 F1 cars are going to be a huge change though, bringing back ground effect and reducing the reliance on traditional aero to keep the cars stuck to the track.
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
A bizarre thread attempting to defend the indefensible. Facebook is a disgusting organisation which, and this is the most bizarre aspect of RT's one-sided thread, constantly data mines to invade and intrude into personal privacy. One of its most egregious examples is in its new data privacy invasion rules on WhatsApp, which Facebook owns.
Let's be clear about this. It has nothing to do with freedom. It has everything to do with profit. The more Facebook can invade your privacy, the more it can manipulate what you see, when you see it, and what you can be coerced into buying. Facebook and Google are duopolies controlling around 65% of your access to the news and where a monopoly exists you can be certain that there your freedom and right to access any news you like ... ends.
As I say, a bizarre article. Richard has pinned his ultra-libertarian ideals to the wrong mast.
For anyone who missed my earlier rebuttal of Richard's lopsided article.
And you are just as wrong in the reposting as you were in the original.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
Another finding from the entrails of that poll is the most likely profile of person that would find Sir Keir more charismatic than Boris is a Lib Dem voting Geordie!
Yes, the phrasing was a shade clumsy - perhaps I should have said "GB News will always be friendly to the Conservative Party, whether in Government or Opposition"
Seriously, if all we're going to get from GB News is a Fox News style approach where the Conservatives are either praised or treated with kid gloves (apart from anyone openly disagreeing with the Prime Minister who will be vilified) while Labour is criticised and attacked for anything and everything (except for any Labour person who openly criticises the Labour leader who will be praised to the skies) I won't be surprised.
In an ideal world, I'd like any news organisation not to be opinion-free (that's unrealistic) but content consistent. Criticise and challenge all parties equally isn't a bad place to start - praise and support all parties equally isn't a bad maxim either depending on the tone you want to adopt (the latter, a "positive spin on everything" might be the real guarantee of commercial success in the current climate).
I'd pay (though I don't think I should have to) for an equally robust approach across the political spectrum. I'm not paying to stand in my own echo chamber or even someone else's.
I hope that's not what we get, I don't want a Fox News style approach.
But why does nobody object to the fact we already have that in this country with Channel 4? Why does nobody object to the fact Labour are either treated with kid gloves (or attacked from the left) while the Tories are always attacked from the left?
I think that is merely your interpretation of Channel 4 News, granted many on here will agree with you. C4 News seems pretty balanced to me, and it is relatively serious
I was always very fond of the BBC News, however over the last ten years they have become so reluctant to be seen to be biased against the party of the day in Westminster they pull stupid stunts like substituting the 2019 Cenotaph footage with that from 2016 for fear of antagonising the Prime Minister. I don't believe that to mean there is a Conservative bias at the BBC, it is just those editing the BBC News, have lost site of what impartiality means. All except Naga who is happy to give any Tory Minister a good hiding, but then she is balanced out by Emma Barnett who will give anyone outside the Conservative Party a good kicking!
"C4 News seems pretty balanced to me"
Houston, we have a problem.....
Indeed.
Some people claim that the Beeb is balanced as its attacked by right and left. I'm not sure that's a fair measure of impartiality but if it is, then Channel 4 is not attacked by the left.
Come on, Jon Snow is not exactly a mirror image of Sean Hannity.
I'm hoping GB News won't have Sean Hannity either.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
Which is Andrew Neil. Who I am sure has been on TV once or twice before.
That's a hell of a mirror though! Would give Jon Snow quite a shock (and Andrew Neil too, no doubt).
Meanwhile, the Twitter response to Keith Cardboard's relaunch speech was predictable. The hard left can't accept that people have rejected them twice, so any failure of "the right" gets them excited for prospects of a return to true socialism.
Having listened to the speech live I still can't tell you what he said as he didn't say much and what he did say was so bland and tedious as to make you zone out. Reading some of the reportage he was pro-business partnerships and anti-poverty - all good things but missing the so what factor.
Politics is sales, and sadly for Labour they have no idea what punters actually want, hence being Here to Here and agreeing with the government about the pressing need to cut funding for school breakfast clubs. Starmer is Milliband - nice but crap, someone who means well, probably genuinely wants to do good, but is so "other" that people won't listen or care what he says.
I would argue Labour should try again with a new leader but like the Tories I struggle to see who they replace their crap leader with.
Well, Starmer still has a couple of years at least until a likely election date and hopefully he can make some progress. Another big Tory win could easily see the wounded Labour membership draw the wrong conclusions - again - and bring back the loony Left in a 2015-style fit of pique. Most likely we then turn into a Japanese-style one-party democracy; or the Tories make such a hash of things further down the line (or simply fall victim to traditional voter fatigue with long-serving administrations) that the loonies actually get to run the country. Neither prospect is particularly appealing.
TBH if the party does worse than Corbyn 2017 before Corbyn and does worse than Corbyn 2017 after Corbyn then surely the argument that even though they are all evil people and don't at all deserve representation and it is better to lose with millions of votes less....
That the Labour party marching over to the right is actually the less electorally sound position starts to have to be accepted even if you would prefer a different reality.
I realise that for a lot of people here that conveniently the right leader of the Labour party is one they prefer politically (guilty here also) but if the facts (with recent elections being the best facts we have in this regard) point to a left wing Labour doing better electorally than a right wing Labour then surely it would be crazy for Labour not to go for a left wing leader if Starmer fails.
I mean are Labour there to try and win votes or to please the commentariat and right wing people on PB?
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
If we're judging by actions then Corbyn ushered in an eighty seat majority for the Tories, nearly a decade after the Tories entered Downing Street.
Thanks Jezziah! 👍
That was the first election since 1865 where a governing party that had lost seats at a previous election made a net gain of them, and the first time ever a party that had been in government for nine years or more increased their majority.
It was a stunningly bad performance by Labour from every metric. It just should not have happened.
Fantastic that it did though.
For us, not the left.
For *you* PhilIip not *us* please. I never voted for Johnson.
It was a very bad result for anyone who wants proper two party democracy. In fact, just about the worst imaginable.
"Us" on the right.
And in my eyes the country, but that's just my opinion.
And in my opinion for those who want proper two party democracy since it should have provided a wake up call to the left rather than them wanting a "one more heave" approach.
I agree it should. But it clearly hasn’t.
The fact Keith won instead of Wrong Daily shows they've at least learned some lessons. Not enough perhaps but some. But even he's pretty left of centre.
Possibly one more teachable moment in 2024 then it can sink in? Happy for them to get as many lessons as they need.
The problem here is claiming Keith as left wing when his entire tenure as Labour leader has consisted of kicking the left for the rights entertainment is going to be a hard sell...
He's not kicking the left. He is the left. He's kicking the extreme far left.
I support the Tories. I recognise both Boris Johnson and David Cameron as right wing.
I have no problems whatsoever with either Boris or Dave "kicking" the extreme far right. Indeed I welcome it.
TBH in Conservative terms the example probably would be Dave kicking Boris' ass, I can't imagine it would actually be too welcome in reality...
Okay extreme far left (a new one I think, bit of a mouthful though too many words) is pretty much just considered left in Labour circles, nationalising railways and opposing war and such pretty common place outside of Blairite circles in the party TBH, sorry if this comes as bad news but 'extreme far left' is pretty much just regular mainstream left...
There is lots of left (not great in population numbers) that wouldn't vote for Corbyn even as a compromise (whilst some communist party or another did advise voting Labour in 2015)
"In Labour circle" and "in the country" are too very different things though.
Labour are to the left of the country. If you're to the left of Labour, then of course you're even further to the left of the country. If you're in the right of Labour, then you're still in the left overall.
Its like arguing between shades of red. You can have rose, crimson and blood red. Starmer's Labour may be rose red, while Corbyn's blood red might say they're a deeper shade of red - that doesn't make those who prefer rose red are actually wanting blue.
I'm pretty sure most of my posts have claimed Starmer as representing the right of Labour, so still red but some very pale shade, I mean you could argue about the parties stretching to centrist but my main claim has been Starmer represents the right of Labour (not the right of the country) and that it is electorally on that part of Labour if he does worse than the left of Labour.
Also if we can make the argument part of Labour is extreme far left on the basis of political positioning, it is the left party thus its left is extreme far left, can't we make that same argument with the Tories? they are right thus their right is extreme far right?
Yes we sort of can. When Tories pander to their extremes like electing IDS then the Tories lose.
Parties that pander to their base tend to lose in this nation, parties that target the voters win.
Though the Tories expel the extreme far right so they're not in the party. Labour have let the extreme far left squat in Labour for decades.
IDS never lost a general election and probably would have done at least as well as Howard did in 2005. Thatcher won 3 general elections from the right.
Yes, leaders also need to win the centre too, see Cameron and Blair but leaders who only target the centre and lose their base can also lose, see the LDs in 2015 or May's Tories in early 2019 if their base also has an alternative party to go to
Thatcher was to the right but she also targeted the centre. She moved the centre be her right.
She remade the country to be to the right of where it was and brought the public with her. That's the difference.
Thatcher would never have succeeded without policies like Right To Buy. By introducing Right To Buy she transformed and brought people on the journey with her.
In 1979 Jim Callaghan was the more centrist of the 2 main party leaders, Thatcher won that election from the right and yes she did shift the centre towards her, as indeed did Attlee in 1945, Thatcher and Attlee bringing in the biggest changes in our domestic policy since WW2.
She remained on the right in 1983 and 1987 but because Labour moved left under Foot and Kinnock she was able to win bigger majorities than she had in 1979
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
I'm somewhat surprised at the likelihood of Boris buying a round, too. Strikes me as the sort of bloke who says 'Good lord, is that the time? My dinner will be in the dog if I don't run.See you chaps later!' when it's his turn.
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
The point here is that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. Nothing to do with the end of the world wide web, vast swathes of which are not 'free' however much a First Amendment adoring Richard Tyndall might wish. Nothing to do with a nasty Government trying to control the news.
Richard is, unfortunately, doomed by a belief that Government is inherently bad and business is inherently good.
Facebook isn't in a battle about who controls the news. It's in a battle for money. Your money. Your data = your money.
It's all about profit. So don't portray this as some seismic battle of Good vs Evil. Governments try to take money, of course, but don't let that blindside you into thinking that Facebook is some Robin Hood figure in this fight.
And this posting from you eloquently explains your earlier response to the article at the start of this thread. You have no interest in the practical implications of these new laws on the internet or on the ability to disseminate news freely. You just hate Facebook because of their privacy and tax issues.
Now that is a perfectly valid view to hold but it does rather undermine any arguments you might make regarding the value of the Australian laws and their malign impact on the wider internet.
No it's a slightly different point I'm making. My earlier one was a very valid rebuttal to your skewed ultra-libertarian, but ultimately misguided, viewpoint.
Wrong. As most commentators here have observed. You are conflating valid arguments about data privacy and tax burden with invalid ones about the right of individuals to link to articles and disseminate news. If you are so myopic that you can't see the threat this poses (when those who actually founded the web can see it very clearly) then you really need to do some more research.
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
Uber are worse than Facebook in the list of scummy companies. They lost $6bn last year, while treating everyone like dirt and ruining several industries in the process.
The whole food delivery app business is hilarious in operation from a business perspective - there's simply no way to make money delivering food for free, but tens of billions of dollars of VC capital seem to think it's possible.
They don't do it for free by any means.
Last I saw they were taking about 30% of the ticket price of the order, plus a delivery charge often too.
It looks 'free' or a nominal charge to the consumer, but they're taking a large cut (30% as you say) from the restaurant. Restaurants can live with that as a promotion, but not on a permanent basis, and many are moving away from these platforms as a result. With a number of competing platforms looking for market share, they're also spending big money on traditional advertising, marketing and promotions of their own, to the point that they're all losing vast amounts of cash. It's a totally unsustainable business model - unless you've a monopoly and can dictate prices.
I'm not convinced its unsustainable, just expect that it will eventually reach an equilibrium with the price absorbed.
I like KFC and our local KFC are now on Just Eat/Deliveroo for instance and they have inflated all their prices dramatically, then there's the £2 delivery charge on top. So a meal for one is £8 (about £5.50 through the drive thru) and a 10 piece wicked variety bucket is £24 (about £16 through the drive thru).
I know that its miles cheaper to go to the drive thru than it is to pay for delivery but to be honest when we want a treat and I can't be bothered to go to the drive thru then its easier to just pay the price for delivery.
At those prices the restaurant I'm assuming will make money, I'm assuming Deliveroo/Just Eat will and I'm being charged for the service they provide. What's not sustainable is expecting a free lunch.
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
How are Oneweb doing?
They seem to have only 110 satellites in orbit right now, of a planned 6,372 (reduced from 47,844). Starlink has 1,145 of an approved 12,000 and is asking for a further 33,000 licenses.
Starlink can have a much higher future launch cadence with SpaceX so can get first mover advantage, whereas Oneweb needs more infrequent Soyuz launches. It also is selling directly to the customer whereas Oneweb is looking to become part of the global backbone to telecomms companies. I think the UK Gov't's investment in Oneweb (Please tell me we have equity for our cash !) will prove a good one but Starlink will be the larger global business.
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
The point here is that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. Nothing to do with the end of the world wide web, vast swathes of which are not 'free' however much a First Amendment adoring Richard Tyndall might wish. Nothing to do with a nasty Government trying to control the news.
Richard is, unfortunately, doomed by a belief that Government is inherently bad and business is inherently good.
Facebook isn't in a battle about who controls the news. It's in a battle for money. Your money. Your data = your money.
It's all about profit. So don't portray this as some seismic battle of Good vs Evil. Governments try to take money, of course, but don't let that blindside you into thinking that Facebook is some Robin Hood figure in this fight.
I don't think theres been many people arguing Facebook is good, quite the reverse, so I find it hard to reconcile your summary of Richard's argument in that way.
Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact. He may be to the right of Corbyn, which is hardly surprising given even Lenin was slightly to the right of him on many issues, but he’s to the left of Kinnock. Foot would be a fair comparison.
The question is, can he make that into a widely appealing policy offering? So far, he seems to have struggled.
I think I have said this before but for me actions > words.
Starmer has said lots of left wing stuff in the past, abolishing the monarchy for example a long time ago but his actions since becoming Labour leader have all been towards the right of the party. I mean Tony Blair was some kind of far left when he was younger as well but the better guide to how he would govern was his time as Labour leader (and then to the right of that)
You can make a good argument for Starmer being somewhere in the middle of the party before his election as Labour leader, it is why many Corbyn supporters voted for him and some even more than just voted for him. If Starmer were to fight for reelection as Labour leader (he should be okay, checks only needed with left wing leaders) it seem very likely that he would either be the candidate for right wing members of the Labour party (unless trumped by another from the Labour right) rather than the candidate for the left.
Prior to becoming Labour leader he mostly had just words, now he has actions and for me someone's actions are a much better window to their true beliefs than their words.
I don't have a problem with lawyers* (if anything I guess this is a compliment to their skill) but especially in such a profession almost anybody competent should be able to weave together something word wise that is completely removed from their beliefs but convincing.
*lawyers/solicitors or whatever else you law nerds call yourselves!
Just to point out the obvious, Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.
What Starmer is trying to do is get Labour back to government so they can at least do some left wing things, even if they can’t do the lot.
He has calculated the way to do that is to tack towards the centre on some things to peel off soft Tory voters.
Can he do it? So far, so underwhelming. But at least he is trying.
I don't think you read my post properly if you think the metric I was judging Starmer on was his time as prime minister?
I said the word Labour leader in there repeatedly, Corbyn was Labour leader wasn't he?
I don't actually understand the point of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, it seems very unlikely you missed the phrase Labour leader as I said Labour leader 4 times!! Right s Now you could argue that Starmer in the future will swing to the left if elected, you could equally argue that Starmer will swing to the right in future if elected, you can make the argument about anyone doing any number of things in the future. If I join the communist party in the future I will become a communist, but that doesn't make me one now.
Starmer is representing the right of the party, if there was an election now for Labour leader he would either be the choice of the right, or somebody else would, he wouldn't be the choice of the left of Labour. Pretty much because his actions since becoming leader have been to the right.
Starmer's reasoning for representing the right of the party don't really affect his place in the party. Blair was clearly from Labour's right, whatever motive you gave to his time in office wouldn't change his position within the party he'd still be Labour right.
And the trying to get Labour back into government bit is also suspect, looks more like the right of the party taking revenge now they have the leadership back.
My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. Other than lose two elections, which is fairly standard for the left wing in this country (cf 1983, 1987, 1959...)
But you started this exchange telling me Starmer was left wing, now all of a sudden it is unknowable because a LOTO cannot do anything...
Is there some logical consistency in here or are we going to circle back around at some point because I can't find any logical point in here whatsoever.
So you started by disagreeing we me and saying Starmer is actually a left Labour leader.
I countered by pointing out all his actions since becoming Labour leader show him to be on the right of the party and if he was voted Labour leader today it would be votes from the Labour right with the Labour left voting somebody else.
You then claimed my metric actually showed Corbyn was really right wing because he didn't become prime minister.
I then pointed out that my metric was on their time as Labour leader as I had mentioned Labour leader in my post multiple times.
Now you have said LOTO can not to anything so Corbyn did not do anything left wing.
So why did you say 'Starmer *is* a left wing Labour leader. Very left wing, in fact.' but now say 'My point was that the only thing the LotO can do is talk. They cannot do anything.
So Corbyn did not do anything left wing. '
Either we can ascribe a political position to LOTO who hasn't been prime minister or not.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here by both describing Starmer as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO but claim Corbyn cannot be described as left wing when his highest political office is LOTO.
In fact using your metric from this quote (you claim its mine but it never appeared in any of my posts)
'Corbyn *said* lots of left wing stuff, but he didn’t *do* anything left wing in government for the very simple reason he never got there. So judged by your metric he is in fact quite right wing.'
Going by the metric you use above Starmer is actually quite right wing.
But what the hell is your point really, you argued with me that Starmer was actually on the left of the party and when I pointed out his actions since becoming leader and his support base make him part of the right of Labour you claimed Corbyn was actually right wing.... I mean If your point is Corbyn is bad and Starmer is good knock yourself out but just say that rather than making up some rubbish...
Surely the problem here is how you opt to define "left" and "right". These are not fixed marks in politics - Blair was absolutely a left-winger compared to Thatcher. As was Harold "vote Conservative, look how many council houses we've built" Macmillan.
And again, debating how left wing the guy is misses the point. How left wing the leader, the MPs, the activists are doesn't matter as much as how left wing the potential voters are. The mission isn't to persuade hard left tossers that their strike action inside the party* is serious and should be respected, its to persuade voters that they should vote Labour.
*Some CLP officials are on strike from their duties (e.g. Secretary, Treasurer) protesting about some faux right wing outrage the party has done.
The main point in my original post was exactly about that, the votes from the public.
So lets say some blairite tossers are happy now they have power, stitch ups, stalinism faux left wing outrage etc. but the Labour right go back to getting worse results than Corbyn did in 2017 like they did before Corbyn 2017, would it be time to accept that even though it goes against the views on people of PB and left wing people are evil and immoral the electoral argument is with left Labour.
I mean if more people vote for left wing Labour than right wing Labour (because they are immoral and stupid) then surely the electoral argument moves to left wing Labour.
You can still make the argument for Blairite Labour on purity or preference grounds but when Starmer likely fails to match 2017 questions have to be asked if Labour should continue to appeal to the commentariat and PB or to actual normal voters?
And surely the latter is the answer...
Good points. So what happens if, as you acutely note, Corbyn 2017 was the apex for Lab?
Is it one more push or should there be an amended approach and if so what would that be?
If Labour right continue to fail to match 2017 performance then the electoral argument favours a leader from the left. Arguably if Labour want to win it should mean they chose a leader from the left of the party.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
Labour has had a leader from the left the last 3 general elections, Ed Miliband in 2015 and Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 and lost each time.
On the latest Redfield and Wilton poll the gap is already down to the 2% seen in 2017
I saw that poll on the UK Polling site. A lot better for Labour. Especially with all the good news over vaccine rollout. What will happen when the furlough ends and the support for business stops. Will be a big test for any government.
..or even attempt to claim that Channel 4 News is "fair and balanced".
You have a way of assuming that, just because people choose not to engage with arguments with you on certain topics, it's because they know they're wrong, or agree with you.
It isn't, it's just that we can see that, in this instance, it would be a boring argument that wouldn't go anywhere.
It's a very Trotskyist mode of argument to bore everyone to tears and then take their lack of vocal opposition as agreement.
The point here is that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. Nothing to do with the end of the world wide web, vast swathes of which are not 'free' however much a First Amendment adoring Richard Tyndall might wish. Nothing to do with a nasty Government trying to control the news.
Richard is, unfortunately, doomed by a belief that Government is inherently bad and business is inherently good.
Facebook isn't in a battle about who controls the news. It's in a battle for money. Your money. Your data = your money.
It's all about profit. So don't portray this as some seismic battle of Good vs Evil. Governments try to take money, of course, but don't let that blindside you into thinking that Facebook is some Robin Hood figure in this fight.
So you agree with link taxes and meme bans even though they would destroy sites like this? Do you not think that makes you a hypocrite for even posting here?
Uber drivers must be classed as employees.....that huge ruling.
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
Boom
Was that Macron's head exploding?
No. He never believed what he was saying nor cared about the actual arguments on balance of risks I suspect. If he had cared he would have made such arguments, not made stuff up.
So he wont care. He just wanted to deflect concern for a few weeks. It worked. Though I recall parisdonta saying few in France noticed.
At some point people will have to address the question - "If you want a 'nicer' internet, are you prepared to pay up front for it?"
How on earth do you access it for free? It costs me a freaking fortune every month.
I signed up for Starlink at my place in France this week - 100€/month! I guess that Martian colony is going be expensive.
Starlink is a massive game-changer, if it works even half as well as trailed. Bringing high-speed internet to rural communities across the world.
In theory we can get ADSL at our house but in practice its sometimes fucked or really slow when it's not fucked. The cables appear to be attached to the pole with bailing twine and optimism so every time a cow farts in the adjacent field it comes down. Bretagne...
I think Starlink are on a collision course with governments in several jurisdictions who will not be amped on Starlink's direct to the customer unregulated model.
Starlink meeting china is going to be a sight to behold but it's going to have significant impact in the Middle East where the price won't be so much of an issue.
Starlink won't operate in Russia, for example - there was a preemptive ban, but I'm not sure if they even applied for a license.
The terminals are geo-fenced. That is, since they require exact positioning to work, they use GPS to locate themselves. If they are outside their assigned location, they won't work. Movable terminals will come later apparently.
The law is quite clear. To transmit in the territory of a given country, you require a license (nearly everywhere). So Starlink is going through the list of countries in the UN, applying for licenses.
They have stated that they will use the geo-fencing to prevent usage, even of the future mobile terminals, in countries that refuse a license.
The idea that they are going to become sky pirates is entertaining, but not borne out by the facts.
Yes, most of the jurisdictional issues have been kicked into the long grass.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
How are Oneweb doing?
They seem to have only 110 satellites in orbit right now, of a planned 6,372 (reduced from 47,844). Starlink has 1,145 of an approved 12,000 and is asking for a further 33,000 licenses.
Starlink can have a much higher future launch cadence with SpaceX so can get first mover advantage, whereas Oneweb needs more infrequent Soyuz launches. It also is selling directly to the customer whereas Oneweb is looking to become part of the global backbone to telecomms companies. I think the UK Gov't's investment in Oneweb (Please tell me we have equity for our cash !) will prove a good one but Starlink will be the larger global business.
The frequency allocations alone, for OneWeb, are worth 10s of billions.
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
Doesn't (from this summary, at least) answer the question about whether there's a big drop off in protection from weeks 4-12. We'll see evidence on that soon enough from UK - or have we already, did someone post some figures? So this answers (positively) one of the two questions about the UK approach.
(Should point out that I broadly agree with the UK approach, seems pragmatic given what we know/expect and the most-likely best approach - as long as we monitor the apparent effects and change practice if needed).
Comments
Labour are to the left of the country. If you're to the left of Labour, then of course you're even further to the left of the country. If you're in the right of Labour, then you're still in the left overall.
Its like arguing between shades of red. You can have rose, crimson and blood red. Starmer's Labour may be rose red, while Corbyn's blood red might say they're a deeper shade of red - that doesn't make those who prefer rose red are actually wanting blue.
My knowledge of engineering is somewhere between minimal and comical.
The other flaw in the argument / system is that the pool of votes received by Corbyn whilst large was too concentrated in certain areas that Labour racked up masses of votes for example in Bristol West which was previously a marginal is now very safe labour (green in second). In a constituency system this means that combined with the votes received by labour across the south in areas where they are third this actually gives the Tories an easy ride. The strange thing is this has nothing to do with how valid any arguments are or how effective they would be, but a quirk in the system which discourages extremes
Cameron didn't oppose everything Labour did. Blair didn't oppose everything the Tories did. It is right to waive through uncontroversial stuff and pick your battles.
Things happen, time passes you try to capture the best parts of it (that are still relevant) and drop/replace the rest the general idea behind the, policies / whole governing approach, would be similar.
Now If I am honest I think matching 2017 will be hard to pull off even if we go left (which I believe more electorally successful than Labour going right) because lots of ground has been salted there that will be difficult to claim back, problem being I think it will be hard to pull off getting the votes the Labour right want because that ground has been salted as well.
I think the Labour party is possibly done (for a time anyway) from all angles which considering its recent approach of kicking the left I am happy enough with.
We had an example of that last night with the argument over where was the warmest and sunniest place in the UK, where people were sharing links to newspaper articles instead of going directly to the data source at the Met Office.
One of the great advantages of the web is that you can cut out the intermediary and go directly to the source.
If GB News does have the mirror image of Jon Snow then that is fair enough, agreed?
They don't like seeing news on Facebook and would rather it go away.
I don't want to discuss news or politics on Facebook. That's what PB is for.
First sentence:
The UK has had laws governing the protection of intellectual property ever since the introduction of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act in 1988.
So how did Donaldson vs Becket happen in 1774?
Also many of the policies were taken from Corbyns manifesto of 2017.
However he was an easy target to hit due to his history.
So be happy with Johnson, as it seems you are.
GB News is 24/7 which means its going to have to create news to fill the space it needs to fill.
C4 news has little need to create stories to fill the space it's got.
Their first customers are going to be:
1. Rural Americans and Canadians - tens of millions of them who are still on dialup, slow ADSL or Comcast.
2. Low-latency traders, who are prepared to pay five or even six figures a month to get a signal from London to New York 10ms faster than a fibre cable.
3. Maritime and aviation users, again prepared to pay a premium for a much better product than existing satellite internet coverage.
4. Emergency aid workers such as the UN, delivering connectivity to areas of natural disasters and wars.
5. Group 1 but in other countries. Start with the friendly ones in Europe, Australia, Africa, who want to build out infrastructure for whom this represents a massive cost saving over traditional cable and fibre networks.
6. Now for the politically difficult bits of the world - Russia, China etc.
The first few groups are going to be able to eat up all the available bandwidth for the next few years, they're well over-subscribed for everything they can offer at the moment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/01/16/stop-using-facebook-messenger-after-whatsapp-vs-apple-imessage-and-signal-privacy-backlash/?sh=567930ce4650
Also if we can make the argument part of Labour is extreme far left on the basis of political positioning, it is the left party thus its left is extreme far left, can't we make that same argument with the Tories? they are right thus their right is extreme far right?
Parties that pander to their base tend to lose in this nation, parties that target the voters win.
Though the Tories expel the extreme far right so they're not in the party. Labour have let the extreme far left squat in Labour for decades.
Starting a fight with nuclear armed, permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia and China), doesn't fit with that business plan.
Stalink will be be obeying all the rules...
TLDR: "No"
https://fullfact.org/economy/eu-exports-january-2021/
12,878,460 2017
9,347,273 2015
A number of those extra 3,500,000(ish) votes won by a left wing Labour party did go into useless seats Labour already hold just giving super majorities, but I'd be surprised if it was anymore than a few hundred thousand in total wasted topping up completely safe seats. You only get so many people voting in each seat and they were already safe so the increase is quite small per seat.
Both countries are pretty much back to where they were in early December (actually both marginally lower)
All those companies with what look like already unsustainable business models like deliveroo are going to be screwed if they also have to guarantee minimum wage and provide in work benefits.
BBC News - UK Supreme Court rules Uber drivers are workers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56123668
It's new because in the olden days of a few years ago if your book referred in a footnote to another book it didn't and couldn't give you immediate access to it. You had to buy it or borrow it. This is still the case with vast amounts of published material. Linking is somewhere between a footnote and a republication. As such it may require new regulation. Governments will struggle.
People aren't going to vote for Starmer because he is too right wing, like me. Going more right wing will not solve his problem of people not voting for him for being too right wing. It will make it worse.
Yes, leaders also need to win the centre too, see Cameron and Blair but leaders who only target the centre and lose their base can also lose, see the LDs in 2015 or May's Tories in early 2019 if their base also has an alternative party to go to
- Traditional Australian Media (TAM) is seeing a vast reduction in advertising revenue.
- TAM is seeing a vast reduction in people paying for content.
- TAM is politically plugged in Australia - Murdoch etc.
- Farcebook and Google are making zillions in advertising revenue.
- Farcebook and Google don't pay much tax in Australia.
The attempted fix
- Farcebook and Google are made to give money to TAM.
They're throwing these satellites up for way less than $1m a piece, thanks to reusable rockets, the whole thing is going to be a huge money-spinner for SpaceX so there's really no need to rock the boat.
She remade the country to be to the right of where it was and brought the public with her. That's the difference.
Thatcher would never have succeeded without policies like Right To Buy. By introducing Right To Buy she transformed and brought people on the journey with her.
On the latest Redfield and Wilton poll the gap is already down to the 2% seen in 2017
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1361407903069073408?s=20
P.S. For the record I don't think it was me who off-topiced you. I did give your post a like as you cut me dead in my tracks with your pithy reply.
The whole food delivery app business is hilarious in operation from a business perspective - there's simply no way to make money delivering food for free, but tens of billions of dollars of VC capital seem to think it's possible.
In fairness I like an outlier poll as well but it is the one that has Starmer's Labour on the same score as 2019 Labour and many points behind 2017 Labour.
Ed himself is left of the Blairites (probably somewhere in the centre of Labour party IMO) but he was driven by the right wing ghouls filling his cabinet so the end result was not a Labour left led party in GE 2015.
Last I saw they were taking about 30% of the ticket price of the order, plus a delivery charge often too.
Uber was using the basis that the driver was paid directly to avoid charging VAT on the journey and there is already a major case regarding that and this decision definitely impacts it.
But i get why Uber is so popular as a consumer. Good app, cheaper than a normal taxi.
As for food delivery business, that is something i don't get. It really expensive for the consumer, while relying on slave labour and still not making money.
In general high lift airfoil surfaces generate more drag.
F1 wants to maximise lift even though the 'lift' is being applied downward to increase N in F=μN and thereby grip at the tyre. They will accept increased drag to get it because F1 lap times are made in the corners.
Indy wants to minimise drag and will accept less lift (downforce) to get it.
But the traditional satellite makers were more like the Oxford boat builders* - they didn't want to change.
So he setup yet another business - Starlink.
And the whole point is the money to go to Mars - hence his plans to IPO and get the money as soon as he can.
*Rowing eights etc. They hand built, slowly. So China etc ate their lunch and their boat houses are often flats now....
Now that is a perfectly valid view to hold but it does rather undermine any arguments you might make regarding the value of the Australian laws and their malign impact on the wider internet.
The '22 F1 cars are going to be a huge change though, bringing back ground effect and reducing the reliance on traditional aero to keep the cars stuck to the track.
Pfizer jab 85pc effective after single dose, Israeli data reveal
The Pfizer vaccine is 85 per cent effective after a single dose, an Israeli study has found as the country's top scientists endorsed the UK approach of giving out the jabs up to 12 weeks apart.
Researchers at Sheba Medical Centre gave one dose to 7,000 healthcare workers in January and found there was an 85 per cent reduction rate in Covid symptoms after 15-28 days, while overall infections - including asymptomatic cases - fell by 75 per cent.
Prof Arnon Afek, the deputy director general at Sheba, said the studies vindicated the UK's approach where there is a significant time delay between the first and second dose, as it shows that the first dose offers strong protection.
"This ground-breaking research supports the British government’s decision to begin inoculating its citizens with a single dose of the vaccine," he said.
Prof Eyal Leshem, Director of Sheba's Institute for Travel & Tropical Medicine added: "This is the first study assessing effectiveness of a single vaccine dose in real life conditions and shows early effectiveness, even before the second dose was administered."
She remained on the right in 1983 and 1987 but because Labour moved left under Foot and Kinnock she was able to win bigger majorities than she had in 1979
Richard is, unfortunately, doomed by a belief that Government is inherently bad and business is inherently good.
Facebook isn't in a battle about who controls the news. It's in a battle for money. Your money. Your data = your money.
It's all about profit. So don't portray this as some seismic battle of Good vs Evil. Governments try to take money, of course, but don't let that blindside you into thinking that Facebook is some Robin Hood figure in this fight.
I like KFC and our local KFC are now on Just Eat/Deliveroo for instance and they have inflated all their prices dramatically, then there's the £2 delivery charge on top. So a meal for one is £8 (about £5.50 through the drive thru) and a 10 piece wicked variety bucket is £24 (about £16 through the drive thru).
I know that its miles cheaper to go to the drive thru than it is to pay for delivery but to be honest when we want a treat and I can't be bothered to go to the drive thru then its easier to just pay the price for delivery.
At those prices the restaurant I'm assuming will make money, I'm assuming Deliveroo/Just Eat will and I'm being charged for the service they provide. What's not sustainable is expecting a free lunch.
Starlink can have a much higher future launch cadence with SpaceX so can get first mover advantage, whereas Oneweb needs more infrequent Soyuz launches. It also is selling directly to the customer whereas Oneweb is looking to become part of the global backbone to telecomms companies.
I think the UK Gov't's investment in Oneweb (Please tell me we have equity for our cash !) will prove a good one but Starlink will be the larger global business.
That's the scarcity problem solved.
(gets coat and pendant)
A lot better for Labour.
Especially with all the good news over vaccine rollout.
What will happen when the furlough ends and the support for business stops.
Will be a big test for any government.
It isn't, it's just that we can see that, in this instance, it would be a boring argument that wouldn't go anywhere.
It's a very Trotskyist mode of argument to bore everyone to tears and then take their lack of vocal opposition as agreement.
So he wont care. He just wanted to deflect concern for a few weeks. It worked. Though I recall parisdonta saying few in France noticed.
(Should point out that I broadly agree with the UK approach, seems pragmatic given what we know/expect and the most-likely best approach - as long as we monitor the apparent effects and change practice if needed).
When it comes to ending lockdown, our politicians keep on deferring to data
BY TIMANDRA HARKNESS
https://unherd.com/2021/02/boris-needs-to-take-a-risk/