politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boris Johnson – the man who gets overstated by the polls

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/1138402304208646147

Boris should be good if Grieve is so steadfastly against him!

I'd support Adolf Hitler if Grieve was strenuously opposed to him.

TGOHF said:

You get 9 games to qualify for the semis - they good teams will still be at the top.

Part of the magic of cricket - the best of all sports.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Boris has got the media all in a slavver. He'll announce tommorow to much fanfare !

If he annoys the media too much, their questions tomorrow could be rather amusing given all the skeletons we know about (and probably a few more that they know about but we don’t).

Those questions will play to Boris's advantage: his bumbling posho schtick is priced in, and so is his race-baiting, drug-adjacent past. What the hacks need to nail him on are his detailed plans for Brexit. They won't, of course. Instead Boris will spend the time side-stepping questions about not inhaling icing sugar and both Leave and Remain-supporting MPs will still believe he is on their side.

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1138431491254366208?s=21

I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.

The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.

This isn't the 70s.

Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.

Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed

Says who? Candidates are free to accept or decline media interviews. We had the Today programme , The World Tonight ,PM , and various TV programmes such as 24 Hours, This Week & Panorama in the 60s and 70s but the leadership hopefuls did not feel obliged to appear. Why did we need so much less scrutiny of the candidates in those days?

Candidates are free to accept or decline interviews, but voters are also free to judge candidates who decide to decline them. We are in the age of information now where candidates are rightly expected to be scrutinised more than in the past and those who fail to stand up to such scrutiny can be judged accordingly.

You'd think he'd have learned from Mrs May; two or three, at most, and clumsy at that, interviews in the 2017 election and look what happened to her!

Byronic said:

blueblue said:

Byronic said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1138433955877785600

Crikey, the hair is Totally Trump, there.

On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.

People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.

Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?

Get your point. But Corbyn only came to public consciousness when he was already quite old. Indeed his age is, arguably, his selling point, with his allotment and his string vests. He is the Magic Grandpa, after all.

Boris is meant to be youthful and amusing. He is not amusing when he reminds you of the grave.

All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.

Boris is following the same path. From star of HIGNFY to a mere PM. It's sad.

OldKingCole said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

It is worth remembering that Johnson won the London mayorality in 2012 by 4% on the first round at the same time as the Conservatives ended up 9% behind Labour in the Assembly elections and as the Conservatives were being absolutely trashed in local elections up and down the rest of England, more so that at any other point of Cameron's premiership.

Some achievement that.

He was up against Ken Livingstone thought. Who was at or even past his sell-by by then.

More significantly, he was a strongly pro-Remain candidate, or so he told us.

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1138431491254366208?s=21

I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.

The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.

This isn't the 70s.

Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.

Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed

Says who? Candidates are free to accept or decline media interviews. We had the Today programme , The World Tonight ,PM , and various TV programmes such as 24 Hours, This Week & Panorama in the 60s and 70s but the leadership hopefuls did not feel obliged to appear. Why did we need so much less scrutiny of the candidates in those days?

Candidates are free to accept or decline interviews, but voters are also free to judge candidates who decide to decline them. We are in the age of information now where candidates are rightly expected to be scrutinised more than in the past and those who fail to stand up to such scrutiny can be judged accordingly.

You'd think he'd have learned from Mrs May; two or three, at most, and clumsy at that, interviews in the 2017 election and look what happened to her!

Precisely and his fellow MPs have surely learned from Mrs May too.

If he doesn't end this allegation of cowardice he could see his support collapse.

The beginning of August always seems to have the best weather, if you like it hot and dry (which I don't).

Byronic said:

DavidL said:

Byronic said:

blueblue said:

Byronic said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1138433955877785600

Crikey, the hair is Totally Trump, there.

On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.

People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.

Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?

Get your point. But Corbyn only came to public consciousness when he was already quite old. Indeed his age is, arguably, his selling point, with his allotment and his string vests. He is the Magic Grandpa, after all.

Boris is meant to be youthful and amusing. He is not amusing when he reminds you of the grave.

All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.

Boris is following the same path. From star of HIGNFY to a mere PM. It's sad.

A fair point. But he's not quite there, yet.

I think his winning this leadership race is bordering on the inevitable. Whether that allows him to be PM for more than a week or two is still up for grabs. Expect of a lot of "bringing the country together" and "healing the wounds" tomorrow plus a "surprising" number of remainers in his first cabinet, hopefully including Rory.

Boris is many things, many of them not good, but stupid he isn't.

Byronic said:

eristdoof said:

AndyJS said:

Byronic said:

OldKingCole said:

Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.

The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?

Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.

June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.

The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.

Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.

Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.

That's when the Central England Temperature peaks in the annual cycle, but that's not because sunny weather is more likely than in late August, or early July, but because of the lag period in temperature behind day length is 40 days for a maritime climate in the mid-latitudes. (Similarly, on average, the coldest day of the year is at the end of January/beginning of February).

Byronic said:

I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.

But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?

Interesting example. And a good one I reckon. Although how I'd put it with him is that he is still funny in old age but not as funny as when young - however the decline in his funniness is not as steep as in most others. Freddie Starr springs to mind as an example of the other extreme - a very marked decline. My idea of a comic genius back in the day - possessed really - but in his later years struggled to raise a chuckle.

Byronic said:

OldKingCole said:

Byronic said:

eristdoof said:

AndyJS said:

Byronic said:

OldKingCole said:

Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.

The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?

Ruin it, sadly. Early June has a reputation for being wet, although I don't know whether that's backed up by the statistics.

June in England and Wales is often glorious, but there is almost always a week or so when it is cold, rains every day and it can rain a lot every day. When that week occurs can't be predicted. As someone with a birthday in early June and who often had tickets for Glastonbury Festival (1989 - 2004), I always hoped for the wet week to be the second week in June - in fact exactly now.

The media always has a field day (!) when it's a muddy Glastonbury, but I was often there when sun, heat and water were the problems not rain and mud.

Foreigners often ask me when is the best time weatherwise to visit England. I reply the first weekend in July. Think about it the Wimbledon finals are almost always played in the sun.

Actually, I think the stats show that the best period for good sunny weather is roughly from 20 July to August 10. If we get a big summer heatwave, that is usually when the temperatures peak.

Which is when we used to have August Bank Holiday! For a reason.

Quite. The timing of Britain's bank holidays is utterly retarded. Loads in Spring when the weather is iffy, then nothing all summer.... until the very end of August, when the weather is on the decline once again.

Move Easter Monday to early July, and call it something else (we will still have Good Friday to keep the God botherers happy). Move the August bank holiday to August 1. Done.

IIRC the St Swithins Day legend arose because if the summer high pressure area, which brings good weather, is North of the Azores by early July it will stay there for a while. If it isn't depressions from the North Atlantic can move in, bringing periods of rain.

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1138447281215197187

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

blueblue said:

Byronic said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1138433955877785600

Crikey, the hair is Totally Trump, there.

On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.

People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.

Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?

Well, looking at him makes me feel younger.

I think he looks about my age, and I'm ten years older!

Precisely.

Byronic said:

kinabalu said:

Byronic said:

All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.

This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.

Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.

But not my dad.

I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.

But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?

Garrison Keillor continues to be funny when he's older, but he's mainly on radio.

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1138451422998093825

Talking of age, this is rather splendid, even if you have zero interest in long running radio drama:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-48597952/the-archers-june-spencer-i-ll-keep-going-after-100

Byronic said:

kinabalu said:

Byronic said:

I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.

But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?

Interesting example. And a good one I reckon. Although how I'd put it with him is that he is still funny in old age but not as funny as when young - however the decline in his funniness is not as steep as in most others. Freddie Starr springs to mind as an example of the other extreme - a very marked decline. My idea of a comic genius back in the day - possessed really - but in his later years struggled to raise a chuckle.

Yes, I'd agree with that. Another problem with age + comedy is that a lot of comedy is essentially subversion: lampooning the powerful, satirising social norms, breaking taboos, and generally punching up.

When you are older and richer it becomes ludicrous to act the rebel.

I thought this thread was about Boris, not Corbyn ?

https://twitter.com/thistlejohn/status/1138446028141662209

blueblue said:

What you experience as a 'frisson' is the cold shudder that will make me not only vote for but campaign for the Blues in any general election in which Corbyn is the opponent.

Each to his own. However it sounds like we are the same in one respect - we are both animated far more by Labour's agenda than by that of any other party.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1138447281215197187

Would that "senior Tory" be a desperately hopeful Michael Gove?

Peter_the_Punter said:

OldKingCole said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

It is worth remembering that Johnson won the London mayorality in 2012 by 4% on the first round at the same time as the Conservatives ended up 9% behind Labour in the Assembly elections and as the Conservatives were being absolutely trashed in local elections up and down the rest of England, more so that at any other point of Cameron's premiership.

Some achievement that.

He was up against Ken Livingstone thought. Who was at or even past his sell-by by then.

More significantly, he was a strongly pro-Remain candidate, or so he told us.

Really? He has more Eurosceptic political baggage than Corbyn:

" In early 1989, Johnson was appointed to the newspaper's Brussels bureau to report on the European Commission,[83] remaining in the post until 1994.[84] A strong critic of Commission President Jacques Delors, he established himself as one of the city's few Eurosceptic journalists.... Johnson biographer Andrew Gimson believed that these articles made Johnson "one of [Euroscepticism's] most famous exponents".[74] According to later biographer Sonia Purnell—who was Johnson's Brussels deputy[84]—he helped make Euroscepticism "an attractive and emotionally resonant cause for the Right", whereas previously it was associated with the British Left.[87] Johnson's articles established him as the favourite journalist of the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,[88] although Thatcher's successor, John Major, was annoyed by Johnson and spent much time attempting to refute his claims.[89] Johnson's articles exacerbated tensions between the Conservative Party's Eurosceptic and Europhile factions, tensions which were widely viewed as contributing to the party's defeat in the 1997 general election. As a result, Johnson earned the mistrust of many party members.[90] His writings were also a key influence on the emergence of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the early 1990s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Brexit_campaign:_2015–2016

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1138454143713103878

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1138454632617926656

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1138454997144866816

Byronic said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1138451422998093825

Just embarrassing.

And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.

Chill out!

I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1138438974979153921

It often ends badly for people who insist that their Executive have the power not Parliament.

Charles I and his second son come to mind.

Byronic said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1138451422998093825

Just embarrassing.

And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.

Chill out!

I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1138438974979153921

She should know all about what happens on the last day of October ...

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1138455862589186053

Possible this is an outlier poll, but an absolute stuffing for Sanders in Massachusetts, compared to his last poll in the state:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/06/10/biden-leading-warren-among-democratic-voters-mass-poll-finds/GUVxw1pzDjA9Nau9cMAlCP/story.html

Nigelb said:

Talking of age, this is rather splendid, even if you have zero interest in long running radio drama:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-48597952/the-archers-june-spencer-i-ll-keep-going-after-100

Heard an interview with her on the radio this morning. Sounded quite remarkable for 85 let alone 100. I don't usually go misty about old people - I tend to get distracted by the size of their ears - but I was both impressed and heart-warmed by the segment.

Did it help that it was radio and thus no visuals (eg ears) to process? Perhaps.

MikeL said:

The BBC has played a pretty cute game.

The 2015 Licence Fee settlement had four components:

- LF to start rising again in line with CPI from 2017
- BBC funding of broadband (£150m per year) to cease
- iPlayer loophole closed (ie TVL required to watch iPlayer)
- BBC to take over cost of TVL for over 75s

Factoring in household growth, putting it all together the BBC said it represented "flat cash" or a 10% real terms cut over 5 years (assuming 2% inflation for 5 years). The BBC said it was a good deal. Indeed compared to most public services a 10% real terms cut was a pretty generous result.

Whilst technically the BBC took over responsibility for the policy, there was no expectation the BBC would start charging over 75s - the whole deal was a package.

Now the BBC is going to start charging approx 65% of over 75 households - it will have done better than just about any public service other than the NHS - with almost no real terms cut in funding at all.

(to be continued)

iPlayer loophole was no such thing.

If the BBC is to be commercial and we rename the TV Licence to be a BBC Subscription Fee then iplayer being charged it makes sense.

But the TV licence is a fee to watch TV even if you don't want live BBC. The TV licence should be abolished for anyone who wants to watch TV but not BBC.

Mr. Clipp, you can lead a candidate to a silly sign, but you cannot make her hold it.

It seems to me that the only way that Parliament can prevent a no deal is to order the government to revoke by primary legislation. Voting or passing legislation against no deal is meaningless because it assumes that (a) we ask the EU for another extension and (b) they say yes, two things that look increasingly unlikely.

I don't think that there is a majority in the HoC for revocation without a second referendum although it may be close.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1138447281215197187

The UK media may have a collectively inflated ego, but when did it become the key means of influencing the opinion of just 312 other Conservative MPs? Isn't the best way of courting their support to speak to them at length in private on a one-to-one basis?

DavidL said:

It seems to me that the only way that Parliament can prevent a no deal is to order the government to revoke by primary legislation.

We haven't yet tested whether the government could withstand the pressure from outside parliament to revoke if it really came down to no deal v revoke at the 11th hour.

Byronic said:

DavidL said:

Byronic said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1138451422998093825

Just embarrassing.

And as for Gove, the proposition that we would be more careful about getting a just result because the accused might be hanged? Words fail me, they really do.

Chill out!

I'll say it again: it was a lunch where you are meant to make jokes.

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1138438974979153921

The driver less car one is quite good but she is standing for PM. In the vanishingly unlikely circumstance that she succeeds and then faces complicated Parliamentary maneuvering is something like that (a) going to have Bercow being helpful or (b)..... Of course you may take the view that Bercow is never helpful so far as Brexit is concerned but this sort of childishness is not adult enough for me. Humbug!

I just think it is rather sad, and that politicians can't win. We criticise them for being wooden, stiff, replicated and drone-like (and rightly so, you need warmth and charm in the job - see the career of Ms Teresa May). Yet when a politician comes along and shows that warmth and charm - and, if the hacks are to be believed - actually tells good jokes: then you accuse them of being childish and idiotic?

Truly, we get the politicians we deserve.

Why the hell should politicians get to win? Greedy, self interested egoists of the first water. I reserve the right to criticise them no matter what they do. It's always deserved and then some.

Mr. Byronic, perhaps if the Labour cunning plan happens, then No Deal becomes illegal, the EU refuses an extension, the Commons doesn't pass the Deal and there remains only one option: revocation.

[A sequence perhaps unlikely but we live in turbulent times].

Nigelb said:

Possible this is an outlier poll, but an absolute stuffing for Sanders in Massachusetts, compared to his last poll in the state:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/06/10/biden-leading-warren-among-democratic-voters-mass-poll-finds/GUVxw1pzDjA9Nau9cMAlCP/story.html

That poll adds through to 56 rather than 97. Large implied boost for Biden and Warren.

MikeL said:

There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.

The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.

In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.

In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.

So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.

Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.

Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.

Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!

I don't know the background of this so I don't really understand your comment. You're saying last year the government funded 2/3rds, the BBC 1/3rd, this year the government is funding 1/3rd and the BBC 2/3rds, and next year the BBC will be funding 1/3rd again, and I guess the government will be funding nothing if it's been phased out. Who's funding the other 2/3rds?

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

The BBC has played a pretty cute game.

The 2015 Licence Fee settlement had four components:

- LF to start rising again in line with CPI from 2017
- BBC funding of broadband (£150m per year) to cease
- iPlayer loophole closed (ie TVL required to watch iPlayer)
- BBC to take over cost of TVL for over 75s

Factoring in household growth, putting it all together the BBC said it represented "flat cash" or a 10% real terms cut over 5 years (assuming 2% inflation for 5 years). The BBC said it was a good deal. Indeed compared to most public services a 10% real terms cut was a pretty generous result.

Whilst technically the BBC took over responsibility for the policy, there was no expectation the BBC would start charging over 75s - the whole deal was a package.

Now the BBC is going to start charging approx 65% of over 75 households - it will have done better than just about any public service other than the NHS - with almost no real terms cut in funding at all.

(to be continued)

iPlayer loophole was no such thing.

If the BBC is to be commercial and we rename the TV Licence to be a BBC Subscription Fee then iplayer being charged it makes sense.

But the TV licence is a fee to watch TV even if you don't want live BBC. The TV licence should be abolished for anyone who wants to watch TV but not BBC.

Absolutely. What does the BBC do now that isn't done at least as well by commercial organisations?

MikeL said:

There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.

The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.

In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.

In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.

So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.

Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.

Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.

Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!

"NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost "
So good for the BBC and 'Boo' to the government?

SandyRentool said:

He's someone who overnight went from kicking the establishment where it hurt to being part of the establishment.

Relatable for Brexiteers.

Stereotomy said:

MikeL said:

There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.

The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.

In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.

In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.

So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.

Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.

Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.

Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!

I don't know the background of this so I don't really understand your comment. You're saying last year the government funded 2/3rds, the BBC 1/3rd, this year the government is funding 1/3rd and the BBC 2/3rds, and next year the BBC will be funding 1/3rd again, and I guess the government will be funding nothing if it's been phased out. Who's funding the other 2/3rds?

Reserves?

Stereotomy said:

MikeL said:

There is another aspect to the BBC's finances which the whole media has missed.

The Government's funding of over 75 TVLs is actually being phased out over three years from April 2018.

In the first year (year ended March 2019) the Govt only funded 2/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs.

In year 2 (year ended March 2020) - ie the year we are in NOW - the Govt is only funding 1/3 of the cost of over 75 TVLs. So, right now, this year, the BBC is funding 2/3 of the cost - and it is managing absolutely fine with no cuts to services.

So from June 2020, the BBC's income is actually going to rise significantly compared to this year - as it will only be funding 35% of over 75s TVLs whereas right now it is funding 66.6%.

Why is nobody challenging the BBC about this? OK, it takes a few minutes to understand the numbers but it seems to be all too complicated for everyone.

Finally there was an amusing "give away" yesterday - Ben Brown asked Tony Hall on BBC News Channel how the BBC would manage to fund the 35% of over 75 TVLs. Hall looked a bit sheepish and just said very quickly that the BBC could manage to fund it without any cuts in services. The interview then ended.

Well of course the BBC can manage - they are funding a far higher proportion of over 75 TVLs right now, this year!

I don't know the background of this so I don't really understand your comment. You're saying last year the government funded 2/3rds, the BBC 1/3rd, this year the government is funding 1/3rd and the BBC 2/3rds, and next year the BBC will be funding 1/3rd again, and I guess the government will be funding nothing if it's been phased out. Who's funding the other 2/3rds?

Or do you just mean that the other 2/3rds will now be charged, so they'll be back to where they were last year? If so, er... so what? The fact that they can make do through this year with only 1/3rd doesn't mean they could make do long term, right?