politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Poll of US servicemen and women finds Trump has lost the Milit

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.

There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.

Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.

Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.

What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.

A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.

The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.

I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.

Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)

The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.

We’re not talking about an economic theory. We’re talking about what we as a society consider a public good in common parlance.

You were discussing public goods. Or Public Goods. That is an economic theory which you agreed to discuss.

If you meant that the BBC is not a Public Good (it is demonstrably not) then fine - so what is it?

No I was not. I consider the BBC to be a public good - i.e. it benefits the public.

That is not what public good means. But fine, you believe it is good for the public to have it.

I believe it is good for the public to eat broccoli every day but it would be difficult to introduce a tax or element of compulsion about it.

However it is not difficult to fund the BBC through some form of general taxation.

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.

Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?

I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.

Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.

People would only choose not to pay if they found the BBC not worthwhile, in which case they shouldn't have to pay. Any more than those who don't have a licence fee today aren't forced to pay.

Exactly my point. I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish in this area - just like I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish and not fund the NHS.

If people don't enjoy the BBC why is it selfish not to pay the licence fee?

If someone doesn't own a TV are they selfish if they don't pay the licence fee?

NerysHughes said:

RobD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

RobD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Shagger says "People are going back to the office in huge numbers across our country, and quite right too".

A straight lie? Or just clueless? Or a combination of the two?

What are the stats on this? I doubt no one is going back.

There are probably a lot of regional variations.

Car traffic is back to pre-COVID normal where I live in the North West. For people who can drive to work I imagine far more are now going back to the office, which would amount to huge numbers.

For people who live in a bubble where only trains exist and the rest of the country doesn't matter it may be different.

Surely it is factual to say both that people are going back in huge numbers and that people are staying away in huge numbers. Both are right.

Car traffic back to "normal" and public transport empty = large numbers not going into the office. As various commentators have pointed out the centre of our large towns and cities are visibly quiet. A long list of companies continuing a flexible working policy, I'm struggling to think of any who have come out and said they have scrapped social distancing so everyone back to their desks.

Johnson lying again again again.

It's possible to reopen offices without abandoning social distancing. As I asked, what are the stats on this?

Its *possible* in theory. But like with most schools its not *possible* in so many cases when you look at the space available vs the number of people. My own office, absolutely no chance. Unless the government want to mandate the wearing of masks?

OK, but other anecdotes posted on here suggest people are returning to the office. Without data I don't think it's possible to make the claim that Johnson is lying.

From my personal experience I would say that there has been a significant return to the office over the past month in the private sector, I have spoken to three people who actually returned to their office this morning. From the people I deal with in the public sector, there has been no return to the office whatsoever and no sense of when that will happen. Im many ways nothing has changed for them since March.

My young lady works for a pensions outfit (her main job is clearing up other people's disasters where trades have been placed wrongly etc). She's been working at home since March, as have almost all their staff. Apparently they are looking at getting 15% of staff back into the office this month, however it doesn't sound like many of them are keen to go back (she certainly isn't - working from home is saving her a fortune in time and money, and has had very little effect on her actual work).

RochdalePioneers said:

I want the BBC to go subscription to protect it.

You won't find social democrats within the Labour Party saying that. But that's no longer your political home.

The issue is not the BBC but the nature of the tax that funds it. Its funding is directly hypothecated to a highly visible, pernicious, highly regressive household tax that costs a lot to collect and has the dubious distinction of having significantly less in its favour even than Thatcher's poll tax. Unlike the poll tax, the licence fee tax charges the same to a single person as it does to a household of several adults on good incomes, and it offers an income-related rebate only to those aged over 75 as opposed to all adults.

So it's the nature of that unpopular tax that's fuelling the argument. If the BBC were funded from general taxation or even hypothecated to a less regressive tax, the only people arguing for a change would be the extremist free market zealots who argue that you shouldn't use your public park without having taken out a subscription to allow you to pass through the gate, so as not to discriminate against people who choose to take their recreation elsewhere.

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.

There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.

Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.

Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.

What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.

A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.

The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.

I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.

Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)

The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.

We’re not talking about an economic theory. We’re talking about what we as a society consider a public good in common parlance.

You were discussing public goods. Or Public Goods. That is an economic theory which you agreed to discuss.

If you meant that the BBC is not a Public Good (it is demonstrably not) then fine - so what is it?

No I was not. I consider the BBC to be a public good - i.e. it benefits the public.

That is not what public good means. But fine, you believe it is good for the public to have it.

I believe it is good for the public to eat broccoli every day but it would be difficult to introduce a tax or element of compulsion about it.

Chocolate is taxed and broccoli isn't, so the government certainly tries, even if you're ignorant of it.

People aren't fined for not eating chocolate.

Gallowgate said:

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.

There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.

Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.

Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.

What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.

A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.

The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.

I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.

Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)

The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.

We’re not talking about an economic theory. We’re talking about what we as a society consider a public good in common parlance.

You were discussing public goods. Or Public Goods. That is an economic theory which you agreed to discuss.

If you meant that the BBC is not a Public Good (it is demonstrably not) then fine - so what is it?

No I was not. I consider the BBC to be a public good - i.e. it benefits the public.

I recall Oliver Dowden, some weeks ago unable to contain his excitement that lockdown was ending so Glyndebourne could be back on. No offence to Glyndebourne, but in the realm of public service broadcasting, for traditional Conservative MPs, it seems more high brow rather than down with the kids.

But what do I know? Tattooed, white van man might live for Die Zauberfloete.

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.

There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.

Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.

Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.

What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.

A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.

The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.

I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.

Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)

The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.

We’re not talking about an economic theory. We’re talking about what we as a society consider a public good in common parlance.

You were discussing public goods. Or Public Goods. That is an economic theory which you agreed to discuss.

If you meant that the BBC is not a Public Good (it is demonstrably not) then fine - so what is it?

No I was not. I consider the BBC to be a public good - i.e. it benefits the public.

That is not what public good means. But fine, you believe it is good for the public to have it.

I believe it is good for the public to eat broccoli every day but it would be difficult to introduce a tax or element of compulsion about it.

Chocolate is taxed and broccoli isn't, so the government certainly tries, even if you're ignorant of it.

People aren't fined for not eating chocolate.

I'm not fined for not paying the licence fee.

You would be jailed if you were involved in the trade of untaxed cigarettes, though.

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.

There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.

Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.

Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.

Well, a small example. We all pay for public libraries, presumably, through our council tax, whether we ever use them or not. I reckon they are a public good. It may be a small amount of money, but the principle is the same. I never go to the library, but I don't begrudge paying for it at all. The same applies to many other public services - including leisure, cultural and recreational facilities.

Public libraries allow anyone to use them. Whether you use it or not is a different matter, you can choose to do so. The BBC is not a public good because it excludes a section of society. It would be like the library saying it was excluding certain people.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.

Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?

I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.

Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.

People would only choose not to pay if they found the BBC not worthwhile, in which case they shouldn't have to pay. Any more than those who don't have a licence fee today aren't forced to pay.

Exactly my point. I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish in this area - just like I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish and not fund the NHS.

If people don't enjoy the BBC why is it selfish not to pay the licence fee?

If someone doesn't own a TV are they selfish if they don't pay the licence fee?

If people don’t use the NHS, should they be required to pay tax towards it?

But it is possible to opt out of the licence fee today and you are defending that.

If you wish to say that the licence fee is indefensible in the modern era and you'd go to General Taxation that would be one thing. I'd disagree with you, but it'd be a whole different set of arguments. But defending a system where people are obliged to pay the BBC if they opt to watch any other live TV whatsoever . . . its nonsense.

Either the BBC should be a subscription model for its subscribers (which is closest to what it is today), or it should be general taxation, or some other model. But today's licence fee is madness. Do you want to defend the existing licence fee model which already enables people to opt out?

I’m not defending the license fee, as I’ve said multiple times. I’m defending the continued existence of the BBC in its current form.

RochdalePioneers said:

kle4 said:

I see a backbencher wants a bill to allow recalls if someone switches parties. Whilst I think they usually should have a by election at that point I don't think it should be obligatory, and if be wary of opening the principal to local Gov, where switching is very common.

Is it a Tory or a Corbynite? Whoever - they need to be reminded that under our system you vote for the individual not their party not their leader. Candidate defects from party x to party y doesn't matter - unless they want to have a party vote in which case its PR and some kind of list system.

A tory upset about Wollaston I believe.

TOPPING said:

Mexicanpete said:

Gallowgate said:

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.

There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.

Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.

Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.

What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.

A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.

The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.

I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.

Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)

The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.

We’re not talking about an economic theory. We’re talking about what we as a society consider a public good in common parlance.

You were discussing public goods. Or Public Goods. That is an economic theory which you agreed to discuss.

If you meant that the BBC is not a Public Good (it is demonstrably not) then fine - so what is it?

No I was not. I consider the BBC to be a public good - i.e. it benefits the public.

I recall Oliver Dowden, some weeks ago unable to contain his excitement that lockdown was ending so Glyndebourne could be back on. No offence to Glyndebourne, but in the realm of public service broadcasting, for traditional Conservative MPs, it seems more high brow rather than down with the kids.

But what do I know? Tattooed, white van man might live for Die Zauberfloete.

The BBC will certainly have saved a fortune by not having to send a trillion people to Glastonbury this year.

Isn't Worthy Farm in June where the BBC carry out all its inhouse training? I think that is why it is mandatory for all broadcast employees to attend.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government

Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard

That’s not the case. Labour would be able to win in England and Wales, it would just be harder under current voting patterns. They would have to adapt their image and policies somewhat.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

It will happen, just a question if Boris makes them wait till he's out of office in 2024 first. It wouldnt help matters, but the way things are going it may not hurt even though I dont think such delay is morally justifiable once the snp trounce everyone next year.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government

Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard

Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government

Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard

That’s not the case. Labour would be able to win in England and Wales, it would just be harder under current voting patterns. They would have to adapt their image and policies somewhat.

Agreed. They've done it before and they could do it again.

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.

Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?

I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.

Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.

People would only choose not to pay if they found the BBC not worthwhile, in which case they shouldn't have to pay. Any more than those who don't have a licence fee today aren't forced to pay.

Exactly my point. I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish in this area - just like I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish and not fund the NHS.

If people don't enjoy the BBC why is it selfish not to pay the licence fee?

If someone doesn't own a TV are they selfish if they don't pay the licence fee?

If people don’t use the NHS, should they be required to pay tax towards it?

But it is possible to opt out of the licence fee today and you are defending that.

If you wish to say that the licence fee is indefensible in the modern era and you'd go to General Taxation that would be one thing. I'd disagree with you, but it'd be a whole different set of arguments. But defending a system where people are obliged to pay the BBC if they opt to watch any other live TV whatsoever . . . its nonsense.

Either the BBC should be a subscription model for its subscribers (which is closest to what it is today), or it should be general taxation, or some other model. But today's licence fee is madness. Do you want to defend the existing licence fee model which already enables people to opt out?

I’m not defending the license fee, as I’ve said multiple times. I’m defending the continued existence of the BBC in its current form.

The BBC needs to be an impartial national broadcaster but requires a new funding formula for a modern media organisation

Wulfrun_Phil said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I want the BBC to go subscription to protect it.

You won't find social democrats within the Labour Party saying that. But that's no longer your political home.

The issue is not the BBC but the nature of the tax that funds it. Its funding is directly hypothecated to a highly visible, pernicious, highly regressive household tax that costs a lot to collect and has the dubious distinction of having significantly less in its favour even than Thatcher's poll tax. Unlike the poll tax, the licence fee tax charges the same to a single person as it does to a household of several adults on good incomes, and it offers an income-related rebate only to those aged over 75 as opposed to all adults.

So it's the nature of that unpopular tax that's fuelling the argument. If the BBC were funded from general taxation or even hypothecated to a less regressive tax, the only people arguing for a change would be the extremist free market zealots who argue that you shouldn't use your public park without having taken out a subscription to allow you to pass through the gate, so as not to discriminate against people who choose to take their recreation elsewhere.

Yup. The nice thing about being a LibDem is that I can speak heresies and not get excommunicated. Again, I think a publicly owned BBC is a marvellous thing. But leaving its funding at the whim of ministers who react to agendas pushed by hard right media tycoons makes it prone to endless budget cuts and reduction in scope.

It could be globally relevant today, a major producer of global smash hit television that puts the UK on the map. Why shouldn't major TV shows like Game of Thrones made in the UK with largely UK cast and crew not be made by the UK broadcaster and flogged for a fortune worldwide? Auntie Beeb doesn't have the funds or the permission, but a commercial revamp would allow it to make stuff people would happily pay to watch.

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

stodge said:

rcs1000 said:

Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.

Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.

Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.

Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.

Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.

Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.

Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?

Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.

I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.

There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.

I've always thought Trump had more in common with Latin American strongmen (particularly the kinds with excessive numbers of medals) than pretty much any other type of leader, so are you sure she didn't say she wanted the US to be more like those countries?

It is astonishing how Trump critics really do let their emotions do the talking. All sense and analysis goes out the window simply because Trump doesn't follow political etiquette.

Trump is a democratically elected president subject to the same constitutional constraints as every other US president. That is a fact.

Further constraints on his power happen in mid term elections two years into his first presidency, and if he wins into his second presidency. He could quite easily be a complete lame duck two years from now.

These are facts and not opinions.

South American Dictator. Seriosuly mate gimme a break.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.

Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?

I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.

Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.

People would only choose not to pay if they found the BBC not worthwhile, in which case they shouldn't have to pay. Any more than those who don't have a licence fee today aren't forced to pay.

Exactly my point. I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish in this area - just like I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish and not fund the NHS.

If people don't enjoy the BBC why is it selfish not to pay the licence fee?

If someone doesn't own a TV are they selfish if they don't pay the licence fee?

If people don’t use the NHS, should they be required to pay tax towards it?

But it is possible to opt out of the licence fee today and you are defending that.

If you wish to say that the licence fee is indefensible in the modern era and you'd go to General Taxation that would be one thing. I'd disagree with you, but it'd be a whole different set of arguments. But defending a system where people are obliged to pay the BBC if they opt to watch any other live TV whatsoever . . . its nonsense.

Either the BBC should be a subscription model for its subscribers (which is closest to what it is today), or it should be general taxation, or some other model. But today's licence fee is madness. Do you want to defend the existing licence fee model which already enables people to opt out?

I’m not defending the license fee, as I’ve said multiple times. I’m defending the continued existence of the BBC in its current form.

The BBC needs to be an impartial national broadcaster but requires a new funding formula for a modern media organisation

Yes, that’s exactly my view too.

So yes @Philip_Thompson I guess we can draw a line under it.

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government

Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard

That’s not the case. Labour would be able to win in England and Wales, it would just be harder under current voting patterns. They would have to adapt their image and policies somewhat.

Ex Scotland Boris would have a majority of 74 plus 59 = 133

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government

Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard

Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!

Not at the expense of the Union

Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

The bbc is already a subscription service. I don't pay a license fee therefore I cannot legally access bbc.

The only difference is the bbc sub is yearly not monthly and that by refusing bbc I am also blocked from using itv,sky1 etc or any other broadcast fee.

Its identical to saying you have to have a times yearly sub else you arent allowed to read other newspapers.

Thankfully I have been quite happy to tell the bbc to stuff it as no broadcast channel has anything to give me that I can't get better elsewhere.

Given that the conversation and confusion about public goods - the BBC is only partially a public good.

BBC Radio is a public good - you can listen to it for free and listening to it doesn't stop someone else from doing so.
BBC TV and IPlayer are not public goods - as although you cannot be excluded from using it (there is no technological system stopping you) you can't benefit from not paying it as people will knock on your door and ask for money.

But it's confusing and the criminality of the license fee has to go but in such a way that the BBC can survive. And working out how to do that will be a sizeable feat.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

Boris has promised there won't be a referendum....... and his word is.........?

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.

Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?

I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.

Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.

People would only choose not to pay if they found the BBC not worthwhile, in which case they shouldn't have to pay. Any more than those who don't have a licence fee today aren't forced to pay.

Exactly my point. I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish in this area - just like I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish and not fund the NHS.

If people don't enjoy the BBC why is it selfish not to pay the licence fee?

If someone doesn't own a TV are they selfish if they don't pay the licence fee?

If people don’t use the NHS, should they be required to pay tax towards it?

But it is possible to opt out of the licence fee today and you are defending that.

If you wish to say that the licence fee is indefensible in the modern era and you'd go to General Taxation that would be one thing. I'd disagree with you, but it'd be a whole different set of arguments. But defending a system where people are obliged to pay the BBC if they opt to watch any other live TV whatsoever . . . its nonsense.

Either the BBC should be a subscription model for its subscribers (which is closest to what it is today), or it should be general taxation, or some other model. But today's licence fee is madness. Do you want to defend the existing licence fee model which already enables people to opt out?

I’m not defending the license fee, as I’ve said multiple times. I’m defending the continued existence of the BBC in its current form.

What do you think the BBC does that cant be found elsewhere that gives it any right to survive. And please no subjective crap about it spreads our culture. Give me absolute concrete examples of things the bbc does that aren't available through commercial channels.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government

Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard

Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!

Not at the expense of the Union

Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all

It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.

While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

The bbc is already a subscription service. I don't pay a license fee therefore I cannot legally access bbc.

The only difference is the bbc sub is yearly not monthly and that by refusing bbc I am also blocked from using itv,sky1 etc or any other broadcast fee.

Its identical to saying you have to have a times yearly sub else you arent allowed to read other newspapers.

Thankfully I have been quite happy to tell the bbc to stuff it as no broadcast channel has anything to give me that I can't get better elsewhere.

Read what you have written -- the TV licence is needed for Sky, ITV and all the rest. The idea that if the BBC were abolished, the government would pass up this source of revenue is for the birds.

The licence fee does not go into government coffers currently. I suspect letting the bbc die then still demanding a licence fee and diverting it to government coffers would raise a lot of out cry

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@Gallowgate is spot on as usual. If we want to fund the BBC differently, then fine, I am on board with that. But I do believe it remain publicly owned

Remarkably we seem to have reached a conclusion to the debate on the licence fee, which I don't think has happened before.

There seems to be broad agreement that the licence fee as it stands should go. Whether its replaced with general taxation, a voluntary subscription or something else is another debate entirely.

But I don't see anyone still defending the existing licence fee model . . . and that is quite remarkable really.

OldKingCole said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

Boris has promised there won't be a referendum....... and his word is.........?

...that there won't be a border in the Irish Sea. You cam trust Boris. Always on top of the detail. Knows his facts. Sticks to his word. A man of trust and honour.

MikeSmithson said:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could go for a whole day on PB not talking about BBC funding?

With apologies...

Anyway, following Sturgeon's announcement we can switch over to talk about Scottish Independence for a change

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

The bbc is already a subscription service. I don't pay a license fee therefore I cannot legally access bbc.

The only difference is the bbc sub is yearly not monthly and that by refusing bbc I am also blocked from using itv,sky1 etc or any other broadcast fee.

Its identical to saying you have to have a times yearly sub else you arent allowed to read other newspapers.

Thankfully I have been quite happy to tell the bbc to stuff it as no broadcast channel has anything to give me that I can't get better elsewhere.

It's a bugger when your main interest is live sport.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

It's perfectly possible. The SNP have to persuade a sufficient number of MPs to vote for it. It may be unwise, but its certainly far from impossible.

Mexicanpete said:

contrarian said:

Mexicanpete said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

stodge said:

rcs1000 said:

Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.

Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.

Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.

Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.

Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.

Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.

Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?

Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.

I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.

There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.

I've always thought Trump had more in common with Latin American strongmen (particularly the kinds with excessive numbers of medals) than pretty much any other type of leader, so are you sure she didn't say she wanted the US to be more like those countries?

It is astonishing how Trump critics really do let their emotions do the talking. All sense and analysis goes out the window simply because Trump doesn't follow political etiquette.

Trump is a democratically elected president subject to the same constitutional constraints as every other US president. That is a fact.

Further constraints on his power happen in mid term elections two years into his first presidency, and if he wins into his second presidency. He could quite easily be a complete lame duck two years from now.

These are facts and not opinions.

South American Dictator. Seriosuly mate gimme a break.

You post might not age too well, certainly not past November 3rd.

Bush and Gore went to court over a Presidential election. Were they South American Dictators?

And Gore capitulated for the good of the Constitution. Win or draw, Biden will probably have to do the same. Then we are in Banana Republic territory.

We aren't because in 2022 the republicans would get massacred and then its game over for Trump. Ditto 2024.

tlg86 said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.

I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.

The bbc is already a subscription service. I don't pay a license fee therefore I cannot legally access bbc.

The only difference is the bbc sub is yearly not monthly and that by refusing bbc I am also blocked from using itv,sky1 etc or any other broadcast fee.

Its identical to saying you have to have a times yearly sub else you arent allowed to read other newspapers.

Thankfully I have been quite happy to tell the bbc to stuff it as no broadcast channel has anything to give me that I can't get better elsewhere.

It's a bugger when your main interest is live sport.

I have absolutely no interest in watching sport live or otherwise however I was under the impression the bbc wasn't particularly great at this as sky, bt etc had been outbidding it?

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mango said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

I think that this is going to be the story of the day: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/sep/01/disadvantaged-and-bame-pupils-lost-more-learning-study-finds

A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.

There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.

This is why the exams story played out as it did.

If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.

It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.

Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.

There will always be private education.

If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.

Oh wait, that already happens.

Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.

Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.

To be banned?

In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.

The society we live in is closer to a corrupt oligarchy than a free (social democratic) market. Our education system plays a vital role in maintain this ruling class.

Yes, many of the world's rich have an attachment to the UK, and we facilitate their plunder and money laundering. 1. This might not be the best thing for UK society as a whole. 2. At some point either civilisation collapses or the tide turns, and being the rich lackey country that made the suffering of billions possible might not be a great strategy.

But no, let's carry on as we are. Nothing can go wrong.

Asked and answered.

https://twitter.com/macnahgalla/status/1300812997737275392?s=20

contrarian said:

Mexicanpete said:

contrarian said:

Mexicanpete said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

stodge said:

rcs1000 said:

Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.

Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.

Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.

Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.

Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.

Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.

Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?

Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.

I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.

There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.

I've always thought Trump had more in common with Latin American strongmen (particularly the kinds with excessive numbers of medals) than pretty much any other type of leader, so are you sure she didn't say she wanted the US to be more like those countries?

It is astonishing how Trump critics really do let their emotions do the talking. All sense and analysis goes out the window simply because Trump doesn't follow political etiquette.

Trump is a democratically elected president subject to the same constitutional constraints as every other US president. That is a fact.

Further constraints on his power happen in mid term elections two years into his first presidency, and if he wins into his second presidency. He could quite easily be a complete lame duck two years from now.

These are facts and not opinions.

South American Dictator. Seriosuly mate gimme a break.

You post might not age too well, certainly not past November 3rd.

Bush and Gore went to court over a Presidential election. Were they South American Dictators?

And Gore capitulated for the good of the Constitution. Win or draw, Biden will probably have to do the same. Then we are in Banana Republic territory.

We aren't because in 2022 the republicans would get massacred and then its game over for Trump. Ditto 2024.

Not if Trump invites armed militias to monitor and ensure elections in Democrat wards are free and fair.

Mango said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mango said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

I think that this is going to be the story of the day: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/sep/01/disadvantaged-and-bame-pupils-lost-more-learning-study-finds

A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.

There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.

This is why the exams story played out as it did.

If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.

It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.

Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.

There will always be private education.

If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.

Oh wait, that already happens.

Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.

Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.

To be banned?

In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.

The society we live in is closer to a corrupt oligarchy than a free (social democratic) market. Our education system plays a vital role in maintain this ruling class.

Yes, many of the world's rich have an attachment to the UK, and we facilitate their plunder and money laundering. 1. This might not be the best thing for UK society as a whole. 2. At some point either civilisation collapses or the tide turns, and being the rich lackey country that made the suffering of billions possible might not be a great strategy.

But no, let's carry on as we are. Nothing can go wrong.

Social democratic != free market. By its very definition social democracy implies government getting its sticky paws stuck in the cogs of the free market machine

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-huge-numbers-office-no-evidence-trump_uk_5f4e39d6c5b6cf66b2bd4cfc?5bq&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL2VHRGhNNERmQlY_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABsGPH0_PDfARjNOby_ZyNHtDt6tFmn4sQjZmN2VEBd4QCcgprqE3LVTryG0JI9uIypcG3Kd7RoEArqm4nHTbwNLCChr17kuQedAEjdlfqjrQfvTBWV2cT7V2kRyG5P7teF6ix0mJm9A0ueyPtMFGGNe3EHRzUVjOX4ZD0UoLLMa

Liar. Liar. Pants on fire on a mistress's floor.

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

stodge said:

rcs1000 said:

Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.

Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.

Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.

Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.

Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.

Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.

Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?

Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.

I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.

There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.

I've always thought Trump had more in common with Latin American strongmen (particularly the kinds with excessive numbers of medals) than pretty much any other type of leader, so are you sure she didn't say she wanted the US to be more like those countries?

It is astonishing how Trump critics really do let their emotions do the talking. All sense and analysis goes out the window simply because Trump doesn't follow political etiquette.

Trump is a democratically elected president subject to the same constitutional constraints as every other US president. That is a fact.

Further constraints on his power happen in mid term elections two years into his first presidency, and if he wins into his second presidency. He could quite easily be a complete lame duck two years from now.

These are facts and not opinions.

South American Dictator. Seriosuly mate gimme a break.

It's amazing how Trump rampers have never found a single moment that was bad for Trump over the last 4 years.

Biden stumbles over a single line in a half hour speech "Biden has dementia", Trump spends over 5 minutes rambling incoherently about low flush toilets "Connecting with his base".

CorrectHorseBattery said:

CarlottaVance said:

Asked and answered.

https://twitter.com/macnahgalla/status/1300812997737275392?s=20

Why do you hate democracy?

I don't. I respect democracy and the outcome of the 2014 referendum which both sides agreed to respect.

RochdalePioneers said:

MikeSmithson said:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could go for a whole day on PB not talking about BBC funding?

With apologies...

Anyway, following Sturgeon's announcement we can switch over to talk about Scottish Independence for a change

It's done and dusted, just needing sign off on the details.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Pagan2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

CarlottaVance said:

Asked and answered.

https://twitter.com/macnahgalla/status/1300812997737275392?s=20

Why do you hate democracy?

Have you seen Rachel from Swindons twitter? This is a women with a vote

It's staggering who can vote these days

Churchill supposedly said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Now imagine what he would say if he had met some of the twitter warriors from either side

CarlottaVance said:

Asked and answered.

https://twitter.com/macnahgalla/status/1300812997737275392?s=20

"Gozer the Gozerian... good evening. As a duly designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension."

That oughta do it. Thanks very much, Boris

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1300795393647751168

It will be impossible to refuse Indy Ref if the SNP win again

And if successful Labour will not form a RUK government

Starmer needs to fight for the union and as a first step he should replace Richard Leonard

Surely Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Sine Die, would tick all your boxes BigG!

Not at the expense of the Union

Indeed right now Boris is not ticking many of my boxes at all

It looks to me like the Union is gone, save the shouting, and I say that as a Unionist. If Johnson is re-elected with a majority in 2024 he can hang on to the Union until 2029. There has to be a point however when the Conservatives lose power. Then it is all over.

While I expect a referendum sometime in the next few years independence is by no means won

The longer Johnson and his band of Brexiteers remain in power the clearer it appears that the Union is over. Ironically, the only way that eventuality is kicked down the road are majority victories in GEs for the Tories. How many more GEs can they win outright on the trot?

You must accept that even before brexit the SNP wanted independence, they always have

However, the obstacles have not gone away including currency, a 96 mile border, loss of £2,000 per person benefit from the union, and of course the complexity of leaving a 400 year union and transitioning to another under the rule of Brussels

It is a complex and serious debate and it is far from over

We've now got a distinct band of Remainers who having lost all hope of stopping Brexit are gleefully anticipating Scexit as "punishment" for the UK voting for Brexit. Sadly in the event of Scexit it will be Scottish residents who suffer, while Brexit voters will be unaffected.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1300817459977560065

Whomp whomp

And you think the destruction of London commercially is something to cheer

I don't think CHB is cheering anything. (Though as with any bursting of a bubble, there's a legitimate debate to have between accepting that the pre-Covid London has gone and maybe doesn't deserve to come back in its previous form and cushioning the fallout from the burst.)

But Boris said something that he clearly wants to be true, but isn't really true. That's a problem, isn't it?