On the header, I'm tempted to think that rumours of vaccine certificates/passports may lie behind some of the increased willingness to be vaccinated. Even if such certificates don't actually happen, it's not a bad nudge to spread rumours that liberties may be curtailed without such a certificate; especially, maybe, among the young clubbers and foreign trippers.
Somebody here will explain how this is a good thing. Sunak's decisions have all been dreadful except for Furlough, I really mean that.
Cutting stamp duty will always result in house prices going up as the overall amount available to buy property remains the same. So it costs HMT money whilst artificially pushing up property prices. Agreed not a good policy!
I confess I've never seen the appeal of horse racing unless there's money riding on the outcome. At least with F1 you can enjoy any (non-fatal/injuring) pile up as a spectacle.
Whatever the rights and wrongs I don’t think horses get the shit beaten out of them when racing. Tad of an exaggeration.
I seem to recall they are limited in how much they can strike the horse.
Plus pretty thick skin on horses. Note I’m not really in favour of racing, but the point could be made without hyperbole. But maybe I don’t get the way social media works...
Any animal that would let a fifteen stone behemoth in metal armour clamber on his back and charge it into a chaotic melee strikes me as pretty resilient.
I confess I've never seen the appeal of horse racing unless there's money riding on the outcome. At least with F1 you can enjoy any (non-fatal/injuring) pile up as a spectacle.
Whatever the rights and wrongs I don’t think horses get the shit beaten out of them when racing. Tad of an exaggeration.
I seem to recall they are limited in how much they can strike the horse.
Plus pretty thick skin on horses. Note I’m not really in favour of racing, but the point could be made without hyperbole. But maybe I don’t get the way social media works...
Any animal that would let a fifteen stone behemoth in metal armour clamber on his back and charge it into a chaotic melee strikes me as pretty resilient.
How insensitive! I mean the UK government has been nothing if not publicly vitriolic in its outrage and brutal in its merciless sanctioning of the Saudi regime. Not.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
You said it on the last thread for one!
No, I said recent polling moves were due to the vaccine, it is clear there's a correlation between the increase in the Tory vote share and the vaccine rollout.
I'm sorry you don't understand nuance.
It looked like you said ‘vaccine bounce’, my apologies
You said
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
I wasn't hiding behind that, I'm saying the last year's polling has been driven by Covid-19.
Just so we're clear, the polling over the last year has been up and down like a whore's drawers because of Covid-19.
Initial moves which saw the Tories increase their lead thanks to 'war effort rally behind the leader' effect and a bit of a sympathy vote with Boris Johnson being at death's door, that unwound as the UK's death toll increased, leading to Labour leads, then now a vaccine bounce.
FWIW it is worth, I do expect the vaccine bounce to continue for a few months then unwind back later on in the year as I expect Sunak will disappoint a lot of people and that will lead to discontentment as I don't think he'll be able to save every job and business once we get back normality.
I confess I've never seen the appeal of horse racing unless there's money riding on the outcome. At least with F1 you can enjoy any (non-fatal/injuring) pile up as a spectacle.
Whatever the rights and wrongs I don’t think horses get the shit beaten out of them when racing. Tad of an exaggeration.
I seem to recall they are limited in how much they can strike the horse.
Plus pretty thick skin on horses. Note I’m not really in favour of racing, but the point could be made without hyperbole. But maybe I don’t get the way social media works...
Any animal that would let a fifteen stone behemoth in metal armour clamber on his back and charge it into a chaotic melee strikes me as pretty resilient.
Also possibly not deep thinkers...
I was trying to be diplomatic to the poor creatures.
Somebody here will explain how this is a good thing. Sunak's decisions have all been dreadful except for Furlough, I really mean that.
Demand for more space and more higher-value properties instead of big city flats - that chase for quality has been obvious. By contrast it's not clear theoretically why people should end up paying more money on net for the same house after a stamp duty cut - especially to the tune of 8 per cent!
One of the (few) relevant questions being asked by bewildered Nats on Twitter is: why did she do it? Why even go near this? She was the anointed successor. A cool, clever politician, with a great future. Did she really fear Salmond's return to Edinburgh that much?
Seems she did fear him enough, it's the only plausible explanation. It's been clear for a while now that Nicola Sturgeon's one and only priority is to remain FM. Any threat to her position must be taken care of.
There may be a degree of envy in the fear. Sturgeon is by any measure a successful and capable politician, but she must know deep down she's no match for Alex Salmond, who even his enemies will admit is a political talent of exceptional quality.
I think it is much more likely that Sturgeon believed that what she was doing was "right".
That is, Sturgeon believed that Salmond was guilty of inappropriate behaviour tantamount to sexual harassment and that he should be called to account & convicted.
It just seems that what evidence there is does not support such a strong conclusion.
Leslie Evans is a strong feminist, as is Nicola Sturgeon. My guess is that Evans & Sturgeon convinced themselves that the evidence was there if they went looking for it.
It is a fine line between looking for evidence and entrapment, especially in cases like these where the evidence can be ambiguous & hard to get.
But all the latest evidence points towards conspiracy. And a cover-up. Which refutes your explanation
I still don't quite know why, however
I suspect Sturgeon, or she and her allies, saw a potentially genuine case against her rival Salmond, and righteously pursued - but also tried to exploit it for maximum political gain. But they then got badly caught out when the case failed, necessitating a deeper and deeper spiral into cover-up. As we see.
A cover-up which will damage them permanently, or finish them all
I don't think it refutes my explanation.
Evans & Sturgeon thought the evidence was there, and they -- I am not quite sure what the word is -- "encouraged" complainants to come forward.
They thought -- with the conviction of the righteous -- that they had a strong case. They did these things because they believed they were righting an injustice against women. This seems very plausible to me, especially with the impetus of MeToo.
The cover-up happened -- as cover-ups always do -- because lying is easy.
It is very easy to lie, if you think you can get away with it. You should know that. 😃
I am still not quite sure how all this is going to play out. I think Sturgeon could still turn this around with a great performance tomorrow, though she will obviously have to admit mistakes.
People like it when politicians are contrite and admit errors -- especially with some tears.
This is much, much more fascinating than Rishi and his dull budget -- the two most interesting & successful politicians in the UK fighting each other to the death. Like two samourai.
I think Salmond looks implacable. So one of them will finish the other off. I just don't know who will win.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
In addition to the excellent vaccine rollout on this Government's watch, as long as Sunak, Johnson and the Conservative Government keep hosing the voters down with their endless supply of free money, what's not to like? For their benevolence the Government will continue to ride high in the minds of the voters.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
It’s subjective so I’m not going to try and persuade you otherwise, but I really quite like the BBC and would be quite sad if it went. I also think it’s the kind of institution that is good for the country. In the last year I have watched loads of great shows on the BBC,l (detectorists, Normal People) as well as on other channels. I even really like its daytime stuff (Homes under the Hammer, Escape To the Country etc) and the kids shows are great (Mr Tumble, In the Night Garden, Twirlywoos, Raa Raa) BBC4 on a Friday night has good music programmes. Anyway that’s my view on it
I confess I've never seen the appeal of horse racing unless there's money riding on the outcome. At least with F1 you can enjoy any (non-fatal/injuring) pile up as a spectacle.
Whatever the rights and wrongs I don’t think horses get the shit beaten out of them when racing. Tad of an exaggeration.
I seem to recall they are limited in how much they can strike the horse.
Plus pretty thick skin on horses. Note I’m not really in favour of racing, but the point could be made without hyperbole. But maybe I don’t get the way social media works...
Any animal that would let a fifteen stone behemoth in metal armour clamber on his back and charge it into a chaotic melee strikes me as pretty resilient.
Also possibly not deep thinkers...
Whenever I've got on a horse it's just stopped to eat a bush and taken utterly no notice of me or my directions.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
You said it on the last thread for one!
No, I said recent polling moves were due to the vaccine, it is clear there's a correlation between the increase in the Tory vote share and the vaccine rollout.
I'm sorry you don't understand nuance.
It looked like you said ‘vaccine bounce’, my apologies
You said
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
I wasn't hiding behind that, I'm saying the last year's polling has been driven by Covid-19.
Just so we're clear, the polling over the last year has been up and down like a whore's drawers because of Covid-19.
Initial moves which saw the Tories increase their lead thanks to 'war effort rally behind the leader' effect and a bit of a sympathy vote with Boris Johnson being at death's door, that unwound as the UK's death toll increased, leading to Labour leads, then now a vaccine bounce.
FWIW it is worth, I do expect the vaccine bounce to continue for a few months then unwind back later on in the year as I expect Sunak will disappoint a lot of people and that will lead to discontentment as I don't think he'll be able to save every job and business once we get back normality.
Well if you acknowledge that Labour only closed the gap because of the Covid crisis then you obviously aren’t one of the people deluded enough to try to ride both horses that I was talking about! Rather touchy about it though!
Uk need to pull their fingers out, we can't be outdone by the Yanks.
Given their pace of getting needles in arms compared to us, I'm not worried. And given US immunity benefits us indirectly (fewer infections for variants to spring from, more economic activity for us to trade with) I'm doubly not worried.
We are looking likely to have everyone jabbed twice (who need a second dose) by around June. It's staggering.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
In addition to the excellent vaccine rollout on this Government's watch, as long as Sunak, Johnson and the Conservative Government keep hosing the voters down with their endless supply of free money, what's not to like? For their benevolence the Government will continue to ride high in the minds of the voters.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
The public voted for the most economically left wing government since 1974. They voted for a tax and spend Social Democratic programme. The only surprise is how long it took fiscal conservatives and free market fetishists to realise it. And some who still haven't.
Somebody here will explain how this is a good thing. Sunak's decisions have all been dreadful except for Furlough, I really mean that.
Homeowners' assets appreciate so they have the confidence (and the collateral) to go out and spend. It sounds crude, but it was also the roaring engine of Tony Blair's entire period in office. Compare house prices in 1997 and 2007 and be amazed...
I seem to have been saying this my entire adult life. But. House prices can't continue like this indefinitely. Can they?
Barring a significant and sustained economic or demographic reversal (i.e. something that can turn Britain's continual population growth negative for a sustained, lengthy period of time,) then yes, they can. It's a simple matter of demand running progressively further ahead of supply.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
In addition to the excellent vaccine rollout on this Government's watch, as long as Sunak, Johnson and the Conservative Government keep hosing the voters down with their endless supply of free money, what's not to like? For their benevolence the Government will continue to ride high in the minds of the voters.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
The public voted for the most economically left wing government since 1974. They voted for a tax and spend Social Democratic programme. The only surprise is how long it took fiscal conservatives and free market fetishists to realise it. And some who still haven't.
It seems to me to be the case that people are put off ideas they quite like by fear or distrust of the people proposing them. People quite like Labours policies but Labour politicians like Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer are weirdos you wouldn’t have a pint with, so they don’t get implemented until the Tories nick them. Basically people are reluctant to try new things and don’t want to give subversives that want to alter the status quo an inch lest they take a mile. So they vote for people who only implement them reluctantly
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
Somebody here will explain how this is a good thing. Sunak's decisions have all been dreadful except for Furlough, I really mean that.
Homeowners' assets appreciate so they have the confidence (and the collateral) to go out and spend. It sounds crude, but it was also the roaring engine of Tony Blair's entire period in office. Compare house prices in 1997 and 2007 and be amazed...
Though of course in the long run it's a driver of hard social stratification. As house price growth consistently outstrips wage growth, so it becomes progressively more difficult for young people who aren't already born into money to get on the property ladder, and without that they are stuck renting (which is typically dearer than servicing a mortgage) and cannot build up significant assets, because their capital is being hoovered up by a landlord. Most of the assets built up by wealthy older people, when not required to service long term care costs, are passed straight down to heirs through help with deposits or as inheritances.
The eventual end point is that what's left of the middle class will end up as hereditary gentry and the rest of the people will live as peasant labourers. Welcome back to the Eighteenth Century.
I increasingly have a view that politics is about optimists versus pessimists. All the election winners in recent years - Blair, Cameron, Johnson have been optimists. Whereas Brown, Miliband and May were pessimists.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
In addition to the excellent vaccine rollout on this Government's watch, as long as Sunak, Johnson and the Conservative Government keep hosing the voters down with their endless supply of free money, what's not to like? For their benevolence the Government will continue to ride high in the minds of the voters.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
The public voted for the most economically left wing government since 1974. They voted for a tax and spend Social Democratic programme. The only surprise is how long it took fiscal conservatives and free market fetishists to realise it. And some who still haven't.
It seems to me to be the case that people are put off ideas they quite like by fear or distrust of the people proposing them. People quite like Labours policies but Labour politicians like Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer are weirdos you wouldn’t have a pint with, so they don’t get implemented until the Tories nick them. Basically people are reluctant to try new things and don’t want to give subversives that want to alter the status quo an inch lest they take a mile. So they vote for people who only implement them reluctantly
An interesting observation. Explains 1997 for sure. The wierdos/folk you'd have a pint with were reversed.
I increasingly have a view that politics is about optimists versus pessimists. All the election winners in recent years - Blair, Cameron, Johnson have been optimists. Whereas Brown, Miliband and May were pessimists.
Yes, people want someone with big personality to paint them a positive vision of the future. That’s why I think Starmer is doomed - all he can do is nitpick and criticise and, even worse, he’s doing it to the chief optimist
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
In addition to the excellent vaccine rollout on this Government's watch, as long as Sunak, Johnson and the Conservative Government keep hosing the voters down with their endless supply of free money, what's not to like? For their benevolence the Government will continue to ride high in the minds of the voters.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
The public voted for the most economically left wing government since 1974. They voted for a tax and spend Social Democratic programme. The only surprise is how long it took fiscal conservatives and free market fetishists to realise it. And some who still haven't.
It seems to me to be the case that people are put off ideas they quite like by fear or distrust of the people proposing them. People quite like Labours policies but Labour politicians like Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer are weirdos you wouldn’t have a pint with, so they don’t get implemented until the Tories nick them. Basically people are reluctant to try new things and don’t want to give subversives that want to alter the status quo an inch lest they take a mile. So they vote for people who only implement them reluctantly
An interesting observation. Explains 1997 for sure. The wierdos/folk you'd have a pint with were reversed.
Thanks, yes I’d say 97 was exactly that, and so was 01, the hypothetical IDS vs Blair GE, and 05. Cameron just looked the part and Brown was a humongous step back from Blair charm wise
Somebody here will explain how this is a good thing. Sunak's decisions have all been dreadful except for Furlough, I really mean that.
Homeowners' assets appreciate so they have the confidence (and the collateral) to go out and spend. It sounds crude, but it was also the roaring engine of Tony Blair's entire period in office. Compare house prices in 1997 and 2007 and be amazed...
Though of course in the long run it's a driver of hard social stratification. As house price growth consistently outstrips wage growth, so it becomes progressively more difficult for young people who aren't already born into money to get on the property ladder, and without that they are stuck renting (which is typically dearer than servicing a mortgage) and cannot build up significant assets, because their capital is being hoovered up by a landlord. Most of the assets built up by wealthy older people, when not required to service long term care costs, are passed straight down to heirs through help with deposits or as inheritances.
The eventual end point is that what's left of the middle class will end up as hereditary gentry and the rest of the people will live as peasant labourers. Welcome back to the Eighteenth Century.
Property owners rather than land owners. The difference being most won't see their inheritance till retirement, or close to, these days.
Somebody here will explain how this is a good thing. Sunak's decisions have all been dreadful except for Furlough, I really mean that.
Homeowners' assets appreciate so they have the confidence (and the collateral) to go out and spend. It sounds crude, but it was also the roaring engine of Tony Blair's entire period in office. Compare house prices in 1997 and 2007 and be amazed...
Also now widely seen as a mistake. In the long run house price inflation creates rather than solves problems. Be it economic competitiveness, misallocation of resources or just the unfairness to non-owners.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
Uk need to pull their fingers out, we can't be outdone by the Yanks.
Given their pace of getting needles in arms compared to us, I'm not worried. And given US immunity benefits us indirectly (fewer infections for variants to spring from, more economic activity for us to trade with) I'm doubly not worried.
We are looking likely to have everyone jabbed twice (who need a second dose) by around June. It's staggering.
It's the point that @rcs1000 made in a header a few weeks ago- we will soon be swimming in vaccines, because manufacturers need to get them sold ASAP. If they don't, it will be too late. Although I doubt that the growth rate is exponential (or will stay so for long), exponential growth is probably a better overall fit than a straight line so far. And as we saw this time last year, few of us have really internalised what that looks like.
So, although supply is still the limiting factor for a bit longer, it soon won't be. Then you've got two questions to ask:
1 How efficiently can you get millions of needles into millions of arms? Monolithic, no choice, no gaps systems like the NHS probably have a massive advantage there.
2 How many antivax holdouts do you have? Again, the UK is in a good place from that point of view.
But once a graph has a "whoosh" (it's a technical physics teacher term), little else matters. The whoosh wins. A bad whoosh won in spring 2020, a good whoosh will win in 2021. After all, Denmark have put their neck on the line for some time for completing their vaccinations by the end of June, and you'd expect the US and UK to beat that.
But overall, the world will be fine, thanks to scientists. Except the French? Except the Fr... No, even the French.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
In addition to the excellent vaccine rollout on this Government's watch, as long as Sunak, Johnson and the Conservative Government keep hosing the voters down with their endless supply of free money, what's not to like? For their benevolence the Government will continue to ride high in the minds of the voters.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
The public voted for the most economically left wing government since 1974. They voted for a tax and spend Social Democratic programme. The only surprise is how long it took fiscal conservatives and free market fetishists to realise it. And some who still haven't.
It seems to me to be the case that people are put off ideas they quite like by fear or distrust of the people proposing them. People quite like Labours policies but Labour politicians like Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer are weirdos you wouldn’t have a pint with, so they don’t get implemented until the Tories nick them. Basically people are reluctant to try new things and don’t want to give subversives that want to alter the status quo an inch lest they take a mile. So they vote for people who only implement them reluctantly
An interesting observation. Explains 1997 for sure. The wierdos/folk you'd have a pint with were reversed.
Thanks, yes I’d say 97 was exactly that, and so was 01, the hypothetical IDS vs Blair GE, and 05. Cameron just looked the part and Brown was a humongous step back from Blair charm wise
Am increasingly wondering 2 things. Firstly, could Blair still be PM had he knifed Brown? 2010 was so close, I think he'd have won...And from there the story is an entirely different time line. Secondly, could Labour do worse than get him back? Now, that would be interesting. Not feasible, of course. But the PM would be rather more eager to avoid PMQ's I reckon.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
Who thinks that? Name names who are hiding behind the vaccine bounce.
Covid 19 has caused all sorts of polling oddities.
The Tories were polling in the mid 50s with leads of nearly 30% around the time Starmer became leader, to seeing Labour leads to Tory leads of 8%.
I've done several threads saying I don't know how Covid-19 will play out long term in the polling, I'm not sure when or what the new equilibrium is.
In addition to the excellent vaccine rollout on this Government's watch, as long as Sunak, Johnson and the Conservative Government keep hosing the voters down with their endless supply of free money, what's not to like? For their benevolence the Government will continue to ride high in the minds of the voters.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
The public voted for the most economically left wing government since 1974. They voted for a tax and spend Social Democratic programme. The only surprise is how long it took fiscal conservatives and free market fetishists to realise it. And some who still haven't.
It seems to me to be the case that people are put off ideas they quite like by fear or distrust of the people proposing them. People quite like Labours policies but Labour politicians like Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer are weirdos you wouldn’t have a pint with, so they don’t get implemented until the Tories nick them. Basically people are reluctant to try new things and don’t want to give subversives that want to alter the status quo an inch lest they take a mile. So they vote for people who only implement them reluctantly
An interesting observation. Explains 1997 for sure. The wierdos/folk you'd have a pint with were reversed.
Thanks, yes I’d say 97 was exactly that, and so was 01, the hypothetical IDS vs Blair GE, and 05. Cameron just looked the part and Brown was a humongous step back from Blair charm wise
Am increasingly wondering 2 things. Firstly, could Blair still be PM had he knifed Brown? 2010 was so close, I think he'd have won...And from there the story is an entirely different time line. Secondly, could Labour do worse than get him back? Now, that would be interesting. Not feasible, of course. But the PM would be rather more eager to avoid PMQ's I reckon.
Well yes, love him or loathe him, Blair is a genuine legend of British politics. He may well do better than Starmer even now. Cameron was more continuity Blair than Brown in the public’s eyes I would say, hence DC win. A GE between them would have been interesting
Depressingly, I've just worked out how much I've paid in rent for my box room in East London. Accounting for inflation, it's roughly twice the deposit my grandfather paid in 1965 for a suburban 4 bedroom house.
From that it seems like the only thing UvdL thinks went wrong on the EC side of things was expectations management. Fundamentally they believe they did everything right.
Which is why they are now trying to change things and fight back, which is what you do when you got things right.
It's exactly this sort of thing, from governments and organisations, which prevents the learning of lessons. She will rely on the fact that supplies are now better and will only get better from here, and move on from any flaws with the early process and (more crucially) her infantile response to it.
(Interesting how she has dismissed the signing of contracts as an issue. And also how she defends herself with a quote 'In the end the result was good. Period.', despite disparaging the UK approach 'rushing' vaccine approval, even though that quote would apply perfectly).
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
I can't help feeling that while I am happy for the bbc to exist as long as I don't need to pay for it. Those that do like it have realised that there are now practical options for people to opt out. They therefore worry that as people opt out either they will be charged more or the bbc will have to make do with less. Therefore they argue that we should not be allowed to opt out
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
They are, indeed, all dying. It is sad. The BBC is basically finished. My daughters, in their teens, watch zero broadcast TV, and never will
The BBC going forward is now a salvage operation. What can be rescued, what is UK PLC willing to subsidise, to retain the global brand (still valuable) of "the BBC"?
I suggest BBC news (but dumb it UP), two TV channels, one website, and a few radio stations. Make the 2nd channel super smart and aspirational.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Are you however suggesting people should be forced to fund it even if they never set foot in it? People are suggesting that with the BBC. Personally I havent watched anything on BBC since 2005 and wouldn't notice if it went away.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
I agree. I found the idea touted by a PBer of flogging off its IP and broadcasting via Youtube etc. to be deeply uninspiring to say the least.
Yes but doesn't a certain party seem to act as a lens focussing it and attracting them. Of course maybe you have an explanation why that certain party needed both measures when no other major political party did? I am happy to read your explanation.
I think you're way off the mark with this one. The introduction of women-only shortlists was a step needed by all the major parties, and it was Labour that had the foresight and guts to do it first. I'm not a Labour member, supporter or voter, and as a liberal lefty I used to dislike what I saw as tokenism in my callow youth, so I didn't think much of the initiative at the time...
I was wrong. The introduction of all-women shortlists in 1993 fuelled the rise in the literal representation of women in parliament: 24.2% of Labour MPs in 1997 (compared with 7.9% for the Tories and 6.5% for the LDs), steadily rising to 51.4% now (23.8% for the Tories, 63.6% for the LDs [small sample size, ho-ho]). There's still a way to go of course, but I think it was the crucial step in giving women the opportunity (at least some of whom were fully deserving), and the other parties have ridden on Labour's coattails.
As for the leader comments: again, small sample size plays a part. How many Labour leaders have there been? Not many. Fewer women to choose from too, plus the known factor of the career setback caused by maternity. I'd say it's partly chance, and partly a reflection of society at large, rather than any large-scale misogyny in the party. Meanwhile the Greens have had several women leaders and co-leaders, with little comment or appreciation on here, and the LDs might rather regret their brush with tokenism.
And of course the Tories have had two women leaders. Both of whom were married to millionaires, so they might not represent the total smashing of the glass ceiling.
(Yes, one of them was clearly a fierce intellect and fearsome combatant. The other, not so much.)
Well I have now seen Bloodlands Ep 2 and have to say I worked out the twist a mile off. However, I was absolutely aided in my deduction by the fact I knew a twist was coming, so I was looking for it.
Rather enjoying the series so far, be interesting to see where they take it.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Are you however suggesting people should be forced to fund it even if they never set foot in it? People are suggesting that with the BBC. Personally I havent watched anything on BBC since 2005 and wouldn't notice if it went away.
I also suspect the only people who would actually be sad your department store went away is people who used to shop there. My town had an M&S for example it had been shut 4 years before I even realised and even then it was someone who liked to get their lunch from M&S complaining it had shut down. It had absolutely zero effect on me
Well I have now seen Bloodlands Ep 2 and have to say I worked out the twist a mile off. However, I was absolutely aided in my deduction by the fact I knew a twist was coming, so I was looking for it.
Rather enjoying the series so far, be interesting to see where they take it.
Only 2 more episodes...then just another 3 years to wait for a new season.
Yes but doesn't a certain party seem to act as a lens focussing it and attracting them. Of course maybe you have an explanation why that certain party needed both measures when no other major political party did? I am happy to read your explanation.
I think you're way off the mark with this one. The introduction of women-only shortlists was a step needed by all the major parties, and it was Labour that had the foresight and guts to do it first. I'm not a Labour member, supporter or voter, and as a liberal lefty I used to dislike what I saw as tokenism in my callow youth, so I didn't think much of the initiative at the time...
I was wrong. The introduction of all-women shortlists in 1993 fuelled the rise in the literal representation of women in parliament: 24.2% of Labour MPs in 1997 (compared with 7.9% for the Tories and 6.5% for the LDs), steadily rising to 51.4% now (23.8% for the Tories, 63.6% for the LDs [small sample size, ho-ho]). There's still a way to go of course, but I think it was the crucial step in giving women the opportunity (at least some of whom were fully deserving), and the other parties have ridden on Labour's coattails.
As for the leader comments: again, small sample size plays a part. How many Labour leaders have there been? Not many. Fewer women to choose from too, plus the known factor of the career setback caused by maternity. I'd say it's partly chance, and partly a reflection of society at large, rather than any large-scale misogyny in the party. Meanwhile the Greens have had several women leaders and co-leaders, with little comment or appreciation on here, and the LDs might rather regret their brush with tokenism.
And of course the Tories have had two women leaders. Both of whom were married to millionaires, so they might not represent the total smashing of the glass ceiling.
(Yes, one of them was clearly a fierce intellect and fearsome combatant. The other, not so much.)
Gosh even the lib dems with their smaller sample size have managed a female leader....not labour with all those you claim the all women short lists brought in. Sorry till labour have a woman leader the assumption remains its the part of maleness. Oh and you are not liberal merely a lefty....liberals don't revel in the execution of political opponents
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
It needs to be reimagined in some way. Perhaps it could become a kind of National Culture Service and subsidise creative work.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Are you however suggesting people should be forced to fund it even if they never set foot in it? People are suggesting that with the BBC. Personally I havent watched anything on BBC since 2005 and wouldn't notice if it went away.
Well people pay tax to fund the NHS even if they choose to go private, I don’t believe the money is really an issue for people. It’s a state broadcaster so it’s funded through a tax like all state things
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
They are, indeed, all dying. It is sad. The BBC is basically finished. My daughters, in their teens, watch zero broadcast TV, and never will
The BBC going forward is now a salvage operation. What can be rescued, what is UK PLC willing to subsidise, to retain the global brand (still valuable) of "the BBC"?
I suggest BBC news (but dumb it UP), two TV channels, one website, and a few radio stations. Make the 2nd channel super smart and aspirational.
Get rid of everything else. Sell it off.
Put it all online.
BBC 4 is now what BBC 2 was conceived as. With a little less Pot Black and Rugby League Floodlit Trophy.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Are you however suggesting people should be forced to fund it even if they never set foot in it? People are suggesting that with the BBC. Personally I havent watched anything on BBC since 2005 and wouldn't notice if it went away.
Well people pay tax to fund the NHS even if they choose to go private, I don’t believe the money is really an issue for people. It’s a state broadcaster so it’s funded through a tax like all state things
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
It needs to be reimagined in some way. Perhaps it could become a kind of National Culture Service and subsidise creative work.
Yes, I say they should strip it down and only use young up and coming broadcasters, be a stepping stone for them. Competing with commercial channels annoys me, paying Lineker so much too - A BBC trained journalist who had worked their way through local radio should present MOTD.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
With my son being pursued over not having a license I looked at all of my 4 lads viewing habits
None of them watch terrestial tv, not a one
BTW, this letter he got....it didn't say something like "You have been caught watching iPlayer and you are recorded as not having a licence" did it?
I cant remember exact wording - but that does not ring a bell - and he doesnt watch iplayer - Netflix and Amazon and you tube is all (perhaps Disney plus occasionally)
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Frankly. Anywhere where I can go and not be reminded every 15 minutes that I am over 50 and haven't made plans for my funeral yet gets a tick in my book.
Yes but doesn't a certain party seem to act as a lens focussing it and attracting them. Of course maybe you have an explanation why that certain party needed both measures when no other major political party did? I am happy to read your explanation.
I think you're way off the mark with this one. The introduction of women-only shortlists was a step needed by all the major parties, and it was Labour that had the foresight and guts to do it first. I'm not a Labour member, supporter or voter, and as a liberal lefty I used to dislike what I saw as tokenism in my callow youth, so I didn't think much of the initiative at the time...
I was wrong. The introduction of all-women shortlists in 1993 fuelled the rise in the literal representation of women in parliament: 24.2% of Labour MPs in 1997 (compared with 7.9% for the Tories and 6.5% for the LDs), steadily rising to 51.4% now (23.8% for the Tories, 63.6% for the LDs [small sample size, ho-ho]). There's still a way to go of course, but I think it was the crucial step in giving women the opportunity (at least some of whom were fully deserving), and the other parties have ridden on Labour's coattails.
As for the leader comments: again, small sample size plays a part. How many Labour leaders have there been? Not many. Fewer women to choose from too, plus the known factor of the career setback caused by maternity. I'd say it's partly chance, and partly a reflection of society at large, rather than any large-scale misogyny in the party. Meanwhile the Greens have had several women leaders and co-leaders, with little comment or appreciation on here, and the LDs might rather regret their brush with tokenism.
And of course the Tories have had two women leaders. Both of whom were married to millionaires, so they might not represent the total smashing of the glass ceiling.
(Yes, one of them was clearly a fierce intellect and fearsome combatant. The other, not so much.)
Your periodic reminder that Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, almost half a century ago. Meanwhile, the Labour Party is on the brink of just giving up and renaming themselves the Sausage Party...
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
With my son being pursued over not having a license I looked at all of my 4 lads viewing habits
None of them watch terrestial tv, not a one
BTW, this letter he got....it didn't say something like "You have been caught watching iPlayer and you are recorded as not having a licence" did it?
I cant remember exact wording - but that does not ring a bell - and he doesnt watch iplayer - Netflix and Amazon and you tube is all (perhaps Disney plus occasionally)
That was my point, was the letter claiming he did. Only because apparently that is a "scare" letter Capita are sending out at the moment, where they basically just claim loads of people have been caught watching iPlayer without a licence, but they haven't got any proof (and doesn't need to be true), its just to pressure people into buying a licence.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
With my son being pursued over not having a license I looked at all of my 4 lads viewing habits
None of them watch terrestial tv, not a one
BTW, this letter he got....it didn't say something like "You have been caught watching iPlayer and you are recorded as not having a licence" did it?
I cant remember exact wording - but that does not ring a bell - and he doesnt watch iplayer - Netflix and Amazon and you tube is all (perhaps Disney plus occasionally)
Only because apparently that is a "scare" letter Capita are sending out at the moment, where they basically just claim loads of people have been caught watching iPlayer without a licence, but they haven't got any proof (and doesn't need to be true), its just to pressure people into buying a licence.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
They are, indeed, all dying. It is sad. The BBC is basically finished. My daughters, in their teens, watch zero broadcast TV, and never will
The BBC going forward is now a salvage operation. What can be rescued, what is UK PLC willing to subsidise, to retain the global brand (still valuable) of "the BBC"?
I suggest BBC news (but dumb it UP), two TV channels, one website, and a few radio stations. Make the 2nd channel super smart and aspirational.
Get rid of everything else. Sell it off.
Put it all online.
If you are producing the content anyway, you might as well broadcast it. It’s not like we are short of channels. I never grasped the BBC III thing. Sure a lot of it’s crap or not to my tastes, but they did some good stuff. I never watched any of it when it went exclusively online. I’m glad it’s coming back to cable; it’s far superior than most channels on there.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
I can't help feeling that while I am happy for the bbc to exist as long as I don't need to pay for it. Those that do like it have realised that there are now practical options for people to opt out. They therefore worry that as people opt out either they will be charged more or the bbc will have to make do with less. Therefore they argue that we should not be allowed to opt out
I think part of the problem is that there is little or no pressure which can be brought to bear when they do stupid things. A couple of years ago, they totally trashed radio 2 because the stable and popular line up of DJs were all blokes, and replaced them with a load of poor quality female has-beens from radio 1. This cost them loads of listeners (I was one of those who switched off and have never gone back), but as it didn't have any effect on the bottom line, why should they care.
I've not watched terrestrial TV for years (never had a licence in my name), but it's going to be the same problem there, until they push people so far they don't bother with a licence at-all.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
They are, indeed, all dying. It is sad. The BBC is basically finished. My daughters, in their teens, watch zero broadcast TV, and never will
The BBC going forward is now a salvage operation. What can be rescued, what is UK PLC willing to subsidise, to retain the global brand (still valuable) of "the BBC"?
I suggest BBC news (but dumb it UP), two TV channels, one website, and a few radio stations. Make the 2nd channel super smart and aspirational.
Get rid of everything else. Sell it off.
Put it all online.
If you are producing the content anyway, you might as well broadcast it. It’s not like we are short of channels. I never grasped the BBC III thing. Sure a lot of it’s crap or not to my tastes, but they did some good stuff. I never watched any of it when it went exclusively online. I’m glad it’s coming back to cable; it’s far superior than most channels on there.
I suspect anyway that there are far better uses we could make for the the frequencies tv is broadcast on. Its a white elephant that we could better use
Irrespective of what happens next, it is vitally important that the devolved parliaments gain powers of parliamentary privilege. It is intolerable that a branch of government can force redactions on evidence to shape what can be discussed by committees. Failing to do so opens the door to future governments being unrestrained.
Channel 4 News is the only one that hasn't been dumbed down over the years. Problem is it's become more partisan than it used to be, although it's always been left-of-centre ever since Jon Snow started presenting. I still watch it quite often.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
I can't help feeling that while I am happy for the bbc to exist as long as I don't need to pay for it. Those that do like it have realised that there are now practical options for people to opt out. They therefore worry that as people opt out either they will be charged more or the bbc will have to make do with less. Therefore they argue that we should not be allowed to opt out
I think part of the problem is that there is little or no pressure which can be brought to bear when they do stupid things. A couple of years ago, they totally trashed radio 2 because the stable and popular line up of DJs were all blokes, and replaced them with a load of poor quality female has-beens from radio 1. This cost them loads of listeners (I was one of those who switched off and have never gone back), but as it didn't have any effect on the bottom line, why should they care.
I've not watched terrestrial TV for years (never had a licence in my name), but it's going to be the same problem there, until they push people so far they don't bother with a licence at-all.
I havent had a licence since 2005, my son has never had one, my father who used to be a staunch advocate for the bbc and used to take me to task with a lot of the same arguments you see here has since covid and having had my spare amazon login and my sons spare netflix turned into "why am I paying a licence fee, its complete dross compared to what I get from those" and has cancelled his licence
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Are you however suggesting people should be forced to fund it even if they never set foot in it? People are suggesting that with the BBC. Personally I havent watched anything on BBC since 2005 and wouldn't notice if it went away.
Well people pay tax to fund the NHS even if they choose to go private, I don’t believe the money is really an issue for people. It’s a state broadcaster so it’s funded through a tax like all state things
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
He’s literally just given you an analogue in the healthcare space: even if you use Bupa exclusively you still have to pay income tax, some of which is used to pay for the NHS.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
The news has been dumbed down for about 10 years now. John Craven's Newsround was better than the adult news today.
The thing is: at the same time, the internet means if you want super-well-informed news you CAN find it. PB is an example of that.
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
The Japanese TV networks may once have been mighty. But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment. It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison. They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
They are, indeed, all dying. It is sad. The BBC is basically finished. My daughters, in their teens, watch zero broadcast TV, and never will
The BBC going forward is now a salvage operation. What can be rescued, what is UK PLC willing to subsidise, to retain the global brand (still valuable) of "the BBC"?
I suggest BBC news (but dumb it UP), two TV channels, one website, and a few radio stations. Make the 2nd channel super smart and aspirational.
Get rid of everything else. Sell it off.
Put it all online.
If you are producing the content anyway, you might as well broadcast it. It’s not like we are short of channels. I never grasped the BBC III thing. Sure a lot of it’s crap or not to my tastes, but they did some good stuff. I never watched any of it when it went exclusively online. I’m glad it’s coming back to cable; it’s far superior than most channels on there.
Even in the "trash" / youth market, it was deemed shit. Putting aside the couple of hits, like Gavin and Stacey, all the stuff got absolute terrible ratings, which the likes of ITV3 have found a niche catering for.
It had bugger all viewership when it got cut, and it just got worse.
And for those that say, but you wouldn't have Gavin and Stacey without, its such outdated thinking. They have iPlayer, they can try shows on there and see how they do, without needing a full independent old style tv channel. And it is actually how some of the BBC Three break out hits happened anyway, people didn't see them on there, they saw them flicking through iPlayer e.g. Normal People.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Are you however suggesting people should be forced to fund it even if they never set foot in it? People are suggesting that with the BBC. Personally I havent watched anything on BBC since 2005 and wouldn't notice if it went away.
Well people pay tax to fund the NHS even if they choose to go private, I don’t believe the money is really an issue for people. It’s a state broadcaster so it’s funded through a tax like all state things
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
He’s literally just given you an analogue in the healthcare space: even if you use Bupa exclusively you still have to pay income tax, some of which is used to pay for the NHS.
No he really hasnt because bbc is purely entertainment. Would you support general taxation supporting my amazon prime sub? No of course you wouldn't. People need healthcare, education, roads absolutely no one needs the dross that is the bbc
Depressingly, I've just worked out how much I've paid in rent for my box room in East London. Accounting for inflation, it's roughly twice the deposit my grandfather paid in 1965 for a suburban 4 bedroom house.
Living in the non-posh bits of London used to be quite cheap until about 1986, from what I've read. That was the year the capital suddenly became fashionable again, after about 15 years on the slide.
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
People pay tax for all kinds of stuff they don't want or need. It's an essential element of the democratic process. The converse is that if most people decide that they really don't want a broadly neutral broadcaster without advertising, they'll push a political party into promising to abolish it.
Good luck with that. Lots of people don't watch broadcast TV at all, as Leon observes. But they're glad it's there, especially the news channel, which is widely trusted, for all that it irritates both left and right. Would we really want the pandemic presented by someone like Fox News, with all kinds of hidden agendas and ad breaks every 10 minutes? I agree the case is weaker for populist stuff that any channel could do, but it makes a digestible BBC1 for many in a way that the more austere BBC2 doesn't.
A lot of the discussion on this comes down to our own likes and dislikes. But I don't think there's any great popular support for abolition.
Well I have now seen Bloodlands Ep 2 and have to say I worked out the twist a mile off. However, I was absolutely aided in my deduction by the fact I knew a twist was coming, so I was looking for it.
Rather enjoying the series so far, be interesting to see where they take it.
Only 2 more episodes...then just another 3 years to wait for a new season.
I don’t mind that, and I also like shorter series. Most US subscription stuff is overpadded waffle. House of Cards was superb but was utterly ruined by being stretched out endlessly. It could and should have been wrapped up in two series.
There are many examples. The imperious Big Little Lies was perfection: no need for a second season.
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
People pay tax for all kinds of stuff they don't want or need. It's an essential element of the democratic process. The converse is that if most people decide that they really don't want a broadly neutral broadcaster without advertising, they'll push a political party into promising to abolish it.
Good luck with that. Lots of people don't watch broadcast TV at all, as Leon observes. But they're glad it's there, especially the news channel, which is widely trusted, for all that it irritates both left and right. Would we really want the pandemic presented by someone like Fox News, with all kinds of hidden agendas and ad breaks every 10 minutes?
The licence though isn't a tax you can opt out. Millions are and now its merely bbc supporters agitating to make it one because they fear the licence fee will go up because fewer want the bbc
Well I have now seen Bloodlands Ep 2 and have to say I worked out the twist a mile off. However, I was absolutely aided in my deduction by the fact I knew a twist was coming, so I was looking for it.
Rather enjoying the series so far, be interesting to see where they take it.
Only 2 more episodes...then just another 3 years to wait for a new season.
I don’t mind that, and I also like shorter series. Most US subscription stuff is overpadded waffle. House of Cards was superb but was utterly ruined by being stretched out endlessly. It could and should have been wrapped up in two series.
There are many examples. The imperious Big Little Lies was perfection: no need for a second season.
If you want to make short seasons, you need to have a lot of hits then. People demand the content, they hover it up. The BBC are just leaving money on the table by taking 8 years to make 30 episodes of Peaky Blinders.
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
People pay tax for all kinds of stuff they don't want or need. It's an essential element of the democratic process. The converse is that if most people decide that they really don't want a broadly neutral broadcaster without advertising, they'll push a political party into promising to abolish it.
Good luck with that. Lots of people don't watch broadcast TV at all, as Leon observes. But they're glad it's there, especially the news channel, which is widely trusted, for all that it irritates both left and right. Would we really want the pandemic presented by someone like Fox News, with all kinds of hidden agendas and ad breaks every 10 minutes?
The licence though isn't a tax you can opt out. Millions are and now its merely bbc supporters agitating to make it one because they fear the licence fee will go up because fewer want the bbc
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
With my son being pursued over not having a license I looked at all of my 4 lads viewing habits
None of them watch terrestial tv, not a one
BTW, this letter he got....it didn't say something like "You have been caught watching iPlayer and you are recorded as not having a licence" did it?
I cant remember exact wording - but that does not ring a bell - and he doesnt watch iplayer - Netflix and Amazon and you tube is all (perhaps Disney plus occasionally)
Only because apparently that is a "scare" letter Capita are sending out at the moment, where they basically just claim loads of people have been caught watching iPlayer without a licence, but they haven't got any proof (and doesn't need to be true), its just to pressure people into buying a licence.
I have no TV licence because I don't have a TV or use iPlayer.
I get one licence letter a month and have a large collection of the things. They are pretty disgraceful, and clearly designed to scare people. Stuff like 'we're watching you' or 'you have been scheduled for a visit' when none of these things are true. All 'signed' by fictitious people.
The government should put a stop to it. Immediately.
Edit: Although, come to think of it, although I've had one a month for years, I haven't had one this year. The Pandemic must have struck Capita.
A blinding moment of insight? Or an assessment after a full year of lockdown telly?
I just watched it live for the first time in months. Fuck me. Lamentable. Nothing on. Even the news is dumbed down. It is doomed
It is getting harder and harder to mount a defence, for sure.
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
I get far better, quicker news from Twitter, PB, Google, and digital papers, than I do from dumbed down mainstream BBC
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
If they actually had to fund themselves they might have an incentive to improve
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
But according to some its a national treasure....only the other day gardenwalker was going on about taxing my broadband to pay for it.....broadband I need to have to work so an extra tax for working
There is a big department store in my town which is slightly dated and expensive. Maybe it makes no sense for people to shop there, but I always say ‘when it goes we will wish it were still here’ because when it is a phone repair shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a charity shop, a nail bar and a Turkish barbers the place will go to pot. I think the same is true of the bbc - it is a haven from adverts for loans, equity release, a free Parker pen when you join out over 50s plan, etc. Society needs old dependable institutions
Are you however suggesting people should be forced to fund it even if they never set foot in it? People are suggesting that with the BBC. Personally I havent watched anything on BBC since 2005 and wouldn't notice if it went away.
Well people pay tax to fund the NHS even if they choose to go private, I don’t believe the money is really an issue for people. It’s a state broadcaster so it’s funded through a tax like all state things
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
He’s literally just given you an analogue in the healthcare space: even if you use Bupa exclusively you still have to pay income tax, some of which is used to pay for the NHS.
No he really hasnt because bbc is purely entertainment. Would you support general taxation supporting my amazon prime sub? No of course you wouldn't. People need healthcare, education, roads absolutely no one needs the dross that is the bbc
I don’t care for the main BBC News programmes, which certainly have been dumbed down and are made worse by Laura K, who is an incredibly poor journalist.
Yet the BBC News channel can be rather good. Calling it entertainment is silly: it’s fairly neutral news delivered without adverts. It’s worth having.
Yes it is absolutely different, people pay tax to fund the nhs because EVERYONE needs healthcare.....absolutely no on needs HOMES UNDER THE HAMMER,EAST ENDERS etc
People pay tax for all kinds of stuff they don't want or need. It's an essential element of the democratic process. The converse is that if most people decide that they really don't want a broadly neutral broadcaster without advertising, they'll push a political party into promising to abolish it.
Good luck with that. Lots of people don't watch broadcast TV at all, as Leon observes. But they're glad it's there, especially the news channel, which is widely trusted, for all that it irritates both left and right. Would we really want the pandemic presented by someone like Fox News, with all kinds of hidden agendas and ad breaks every 10 minutes? I agree the case is weaker for populist stuff that any channel could do, but it makes a digestible BBC1 for many in a way that the more austere BBC2 doesn't.
A lot of the discussion on this comes down to our own likes and dislikes. But I don't think there's any great popular support for abolition.
Also I didnt call for abolition of the bbc, I am quite fine for the bbc to continue as long as I am not asked to pay for it. Frankly as well I find the BBC to be as untrustworthy and any of the MSM. People claiming they are impartial is bollocks. They are subtle about it I grant you but they have an agenda
Comments
I mean the UK government has been nothing if not publicly vitriolic in its outrage and brutal in its merciless sanctioning of the Saudi regime.
Not.
How can people hide behind ‘vaccine bounce’ excuse for the Tories recent poll leads whilst simultaneously thinking Labour closed the gap last year due to anything other than the Covid crisis?
I wasn't hiding behind that, I'm saying the last year's polling has been driven by Covid-19.
Just so we're clear, the polling over the last year has been up and down like a whore's drawers because of Covid-19.
Initial moves which saw the Tories increase their lead thanks to 'war effort rally behind the leader' effect and a bit of a sympathy vote with Boris Johnson being at death's door, that unwound as the UK's death toll increased, leading to Labour leads, then now a vaccine bounce.
FWIW it is worth, I do expect the vaccine bounce to continue for a few months then unwind back later on in the year as I expect Sunak will disappoint a lot of people and that will lead to discontentment as I don't think he'll be able to save every job and business once we get back normality.
Things like this.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1366883911477964801
Evans & Sturgeon thought the evidence was there, and they -- I am not quite sure what the word is -- "encouraged" complainants to come forward.
They thought -- with the conviction of the righteous -- that they had a strong case. They did these things because they believed they were righting an injustice against women. This seems very plausible to me, especially with the impetus of MeToo.
The cover-up happened -- as cover-ups always do -- because lying is easy.
It is very easy to lie, if you think you can get away with it. You should know that. 😃
I am still not quite sure how all this is going to play out. I think Sturgeon could still turn this around with a great performance tomorrow, though she will obviously have to admit mistakes.
People like it when politicians are contrite and admit errors -- especially with some tears.
This is much, much more fascinating than Rishi and his dull budget -- the two most interesting & successful politicians in the UK fighting each other to the death. Like two samourai.
I think Salmond looks implacable. So one of them will finish the other off. I just don't know who will win.
If there is no downside to the current Soviet-style fiscal freedom, I can see no need for a change of government. Anyway, why elect a Labour Government that only pretends to be fiscally Marxist, when we already have the real thing?
But.
House prices can't continue like this indefinitely.
Can they?
Uk need to pull their fingers out, we can't be outdone by the Yanks.
We are looking likely to have everyone jabbed twice (who need a second dose) by around June. It's staggering.
It's even worse.
They voted for a tax and spend Social Democratic programme.
The only surprise is how long it took fiscal conservatives and free market fetishists to realise it.
And some who still haven't.
Labour could do worse than ship her down to Westminster, if she is willing and Starmer bores himself into early resignation
I was wondering if re-animating BBC3 was so the DG could step in and say "No! That's not what we do any more!". But I suspect that any press release has had to pass through 16 committees and get his sign-off first.
https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1366886417268359175
The eventual end point is that what's left of the middle class will end up as hereditary gentry and the rest of the people will live as peasant labourers. Welcome back to the Eighteenth Century.
Explains 1997 for sure. The wierdos/folk you'd have a pint with were reversed.
This is happening with annoying frequency.
The difference being most won't see their inheritance till retirement, or close to, these days.
I get better much drama (with a few significant exceptions) from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and (free) ITV
For me, that leaves Masterchef and Springwatch, and occasionally the BBC website, tho this has declined greatly, as well. It used to be my first go-to, online, now I barely touch it. I accept that others do
Is this worth £170 a year? Bluntly, no
I am aware this is an argument we have had many times, and do not especially wish to revive it, I was just saddened and surprised at the sorry state of BBC TV when I sampled it live (for the first time in months) this evening. The comedy show on BBC2 before Newsnight, in particular, was just shockingly and CRINGINGLY bad. I do not wish a single pound of my money to pay for shit like like that. Fuck off
None of them watch terrestial tv, not a one
So, although supply is still the limiting factor for a bit longer, it soon won't be. Then you've got two questions to ask:
1 How efficiently can you get millions of needles into millions of arms? Monolithic, no choice, no gaps systems like the NHS probably have a massive advantage there.
2 How many antivax holdouts do you have? Again, the UK is in a good place from that point of view.
But once a graph has a "whoosh" (it's a technical physics teacher term), little else matters. The whoosh wins. A bad whoosh won in spring 2020, a good whoosh will win in 2021. After all, Denmark have put their neck on the line for some time for completing their vaccinations by the end of June, and you'd expect the US and UK to beat that.
But overall, the world will be fine, thanks to scientists.
Except the French?
Except the Fr... No, even the French.
Adapt or die
Of course it suits them to threaten people and keep the money roll in with no need to do anything
Firstly, could Blair still be PM had he knifed Brown? 2010 was so close, I think he'd have won...And from there the story is an entirely different time line.
Secondly, could Labour do worse than get him back?
Now, that would be interesting. Not feasible, of course. But the PM would be rather more eager to avoid PMQ's I reckon.
What a dirty little mess they made
A couple of hours spent perusing PB will tell you more about British politics (and much else) than two hours spent watching mainstream BBC TV news. Because the BBC is trying to cater for everyone, whereas PB caters for well-informed geeks like us, who tell each other everything
eg MaxPB's information on the UK's vaccine development has been waaaaaaay ahead of anything I've seen on BBC, even relatively specialist programs like Newsnight. All the Newsnight journalists are doing is telling me stuff I already know. Their only cachet, now, relies on them 'being Newsnight'. 'Being the BBC'. How long will that last?
The FT has a good piece today about the exact same process happening in Japan. The once mighty Japanese TV networks have completely lost control of the news output, as social media swerves around them, reaching the viewer directly
https://www.ft.com/content/fb357fd8-ed11-470f-b385-ec9b5e190598
This article, by itself, throws up an intriguing question. Some newspapers - the NYT, the Times, the FT, the Economist - are now adapting to the online environment, and making money. It is the broadcasters who now look imperilled.
But try relying on NHK for news or entertainment.
It's Citizen Kane, 70,s and 80's Panorama and the Sopranos every night on the BBC by comparison.
They only reason folk moan is because it was so much better than any foreign equivalent. It still is. But network TV, indeed TV stations, are dying.
Which is why they are now trying to change things and fight back, which is what you do when you got things right.
It's exactly this sort of thing, from governments and organisations, which prevents the learning of lessons. She will rely on the fact that supplies are now better and will only get better from here, and move on from any flaws with the early process and (more crucially) her infantile response to it.
(Interesting how she has dismissed the signing of contracts as an issue. And also how she defends herself with a quote 'In the end the result was good. Period.', despite disparaging the UK approach 'rushing' vaccine approval, even though that quote would apply perfectly).
The BBC going forward is now a salvage operation. What can be rescued, what is UK PLC willing to subsidise, to retain the global brand (still valuable) of "the BBC"?
I suggest BBC news (but dumb it UP), two TV channels, one website, and a few radio stations. Make the 2nd channel super smart and aspirational.
Get rid of everything else. Sell it off.
Put it all online.
That's not good......
I was wrong. The introduction of all-women shortlists in 1993 fuelled the rise in the literal representation of women in parliament: 24.2% of Labour MPs in 1997 (compared with 7.9% for the Tories and 6.5% for the LDs), steadily rising to 51.4% now (23.8% for the Tories, 63.6% for the LDs [small sample size, ho-ho]). There's still a way to go of course, but I think it was the crucial step in giving women the opportunity (at least some of whom were fully deserving), and the other parties have ridden on Labour's coattails.
As for the leader comments: again, small sample size plays a part. How many Labour leaders have there been? Not many. Fewer women to choose from too, plus the known factor of the career setback caused by maternity. I'd say it's partly chance, and partly a reflection of society at large, rather than any large-scale misogyny in the party. Meanwhile the Greens have had several women leaders and co-leaders, with little comment or appreciation on here, and the LDs might rather regret their brush with tokenism.
And of course the Tories have had two women leaders. Both of whom were married to millionaires, so they might not represent the total smashing of the glass ceiling.
(Yes, one of them was clearly a fierce intellect and fearsome combatant. The other, not so much.)
Rather enjoying the series so far, be interesting to see where they take it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56255701
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbAJ0bsiFE
I've not watched terrestrial TV for years (never had a licence in my name), but it's going to be the same problem there, until they push people so far they don't bother with a licence at-all.
Irrespective of what happens next, it is vitally important that the devolved parliaments gain powers of parliamentary privilege. It is intolerable that a branch of government can force redactions on evidence to shape what can be discussed by committees. Failing to do so opens the door to future governments being unrestrained.
If you can see it, Fraser Nelson's article is spot on:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lord-advocate-shows-the-punishable-scottish-parliament-where-power-really-lies
It had bugger all viewership when it got cut, and it just got worse.
BBC Three's audience has "collapsed" since the channel went digital-only, it has been revealed.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/bbc-three-viewing-figures-slump-18898924
And for those that say, but you wouldn't have Gavin and Stacey without, its such outdated thinking. They have iPlayer, they can try shows on there and see how they do, without needing a full independent old style tv channel. And it is actually how some of the BBC Three break out hits happened anyway, people didn't see them on there, they saw them flicking through iPlayer e.g. Normal People.
Good luck with that. Lots of people don't watch broadcast TV at all, as Leon observes. But they're glad it's there, especially the news channel, which is widely trusted, for all that it irritates both left and right. Would we really want the pandemic presented by someone like Fox News, with all kinds of hidden agendas and ad breaks every 10 minutes? I agree the case is weaker for populist stuff that any channel could do, but it makes a digestible BBC1 for many in a way that the more austere BBC2 doesn't.
A lot of the discussion on this comes down to our own likes and dislikes. But I don't think there's any great popular support for abolition.
There are many examples. The imperious Big Little Lies was perfection: no need for a second season.
Thanks in anticipation.
I get one licence letter a month and have a large collection of the things. They are pretty disgraceful, and clearly designed to scare people. Stuff like 'we're watching you' or 'you have been scheduled for a visit' when none of these things are true. All 'signed' by fictitious people.
The government should put a stop to it. Immediately.
Edit: Although, come to think of it, although I've had one a month for years, I haven't had one this year. The Pandemic must have struck Capita.
Yet the BBC News channel can be rather good. Calling it entertainment is silly: it’s fairly neutral news delivered without adverts. It’s worth having.