Starmer’s approval ratings are heavily influenced by London – politicalbetting.com
Starmer’s approval ratings are heavily influenced by London – politicalbetting.com
Further to the previous post on the latest Opinium PM approval ratings I thought it might be useful to also look at Keir Starmer’s numbers region by region.
Comments
-
First0
-
Damning finding1
-
What are the gross positives for these?0
-
Amazing that Remoaning, 2nd vote-demanding London lawyer Keir Starmer is mega-popular in Remoaning, 2nd-vote demanding Labour-voting London5
-
People like to bang on about certain politicians here being racist etc, but f##k me, I saw him interviewed in French (so his own native language), it made Tommy Robinson seem balanced on the issue of multiculturalism.IshmaelZ said:
I was very much, he said what, surely that's instant disqualification from race to be president, no...no seems not.0 -
Does Scotland like anyone except Saint Nicola Sturgeon?0
-
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
2 -
Starmer's progress towards his commitment of Net Zero by 20whatever is coming along well, then.
Suitably bland ratings for an incredibly bland politician. I bet you'd get the same if you asked about people's approval of a spatula, or Nissan.
I jest, of course; right now I'd kill for a Tory leader who could command such ratings. I know who I'd kill, as well...0 -
Its as if London is a different place to the rest of the UK.1
-
eek said:
Does Scotland like anyone except Saint Nicola Sturgeon?
Think Rishi had decent numbers up here at one point but probably in negative territory now.eek said:Does Scotland like anyone except Saint Nicola Sturgeon?
It's worth saying that at times Sturgeon's numbers have fallen whenever the focus goes away from Covid. It's why she's always been very keen on her TV Covid briefings.
0 -
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
0 -
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.0 -
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people0 -
This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham0 -
It's interesting that the regional approval ratings for Starmer are a fairly close upwards translation of Boris's.
So, London approves of their London politicians, regional England is nonplussed, and Scotland hates them.
But any disadvantage of being London centric doesn't hit lawyerly, careful Starmer now any more than it does for "Man of the (24 hour party) People" Boris.
Nor does being a more traditional Labour area or Tory area make that much difference.
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
1 -
Um you rarely pay for advertising directly. The price of something is determined by a whole set of factors and advertising is a cost that is usually off total profits rather than one directly passed on to customer in a way that can be attributed to an actual purchase.Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
0 -
Are you really missing that free newspapers being paid for by advertising is not remotely the same as the BBC being funded by the license fee - and that the license fee is payable by millions of people who have no intention of watching the BBC, ever?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
2 -
Why, did you actually cry about it?Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people0 -
But London is also where Blustering Brexit Buffoon Boris Johnson has his best ratings. Perhaps we here are just not so down on politicians as the rest of the country. Perhaps it's because we lead fuller, more exciting lives, thus have less bandwidth for hating people off the telly.Leon said:Amazing that Remoaning, 2nd vote-demanding London lawyer Keir Starmer is mega-popular in Remoaning, 2nd-vote demanding Labour-voting London
0 -
That's not the point - which is that the BBC's core business doesn't need advertising because of the license fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....
UKTV isn't funded out of the license fee; it's a commercial operation that happens to be owned by the BBC.0 -
-
I will confess to sadness, if not actual tears, when I hear about newspapers and magazines closing down. Which happens all too often. It means friends losing jobsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Why, did you actually cry about it?Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
C*nts like Farooq don't give a fuck, because they vote Labour0 -
Not sure if this news was picked up on PB at the time (from a week ago):
"MP Margaret Ferrier to face trial on Covid rule-breach charge" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59894859
Margaret Ferrier is the SNP MP (now sitting as an Independent) who, reportedly, travelled around the country rather inadvisedly.
Her seat, on the edge of Glasgow, is one of that small number that Labour regained from the SNP in 2017, only to lose again in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherglen_and_Hamilton_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
If it is a by-election, will be an absolute stonker. Fantastic opportunity for Scottish Labour to stage a recovery and give SNP a bloody nose (or vice-versa). Could put North Shropshire in the shade as the "significant by-election of our generation".
0 -
No it's because he doesn't understand how media works as can be seen in every single one of his posts about the BBC...Leon said:
I will confess to sadness, if not actual tears, when I hear about newspapers and magazines closing down. Which happens all too often. It means friends losing jobsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Why, did you actually cry about it?Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
C*nts like Farooq don't give a fuck, because they vote Labour0 -
Labour and Tories combined get something like 40% of the vote in Scotland. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Labour and Tory leaders do badly there (Johnson does far worse of course, because Scots can see what a tit he is, and always have done). Starmer and Johnson are both London MPs so do better there. Again, shouldn't be a surprise. Although I do find Johnson's relative strength there a bit surprising TBH.eek said:Does Scotland like anyone except Saint Nicola Sturgeon?
1 -
No it is absolutely the point. Because they claim we are strictly impartial and unaffected by any commercial operations. But it accounts for a large amount of revenue and returns significant profits to fund the "public sector" element of the BBC.Endillion said:
That's not the point - which is that the BBC's core business doesn't need advertising because of the license fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....
UKTV isn't funded out of the license fee; it's a commercial operation that happens to be owned by the BBC.
They are riding two horses at once. And again anybody says well why are you doing all this commercial stuff, and they said if you stop us, we can't afford to produce the Archer, so shut up.1 -
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.0 -
Ok sorry, I apologise.Farooq said:
I'll let you know if I ever vote Labour, so there can at least be some truth in the nonsense you talk.Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
I still don't understand why you aren't raging against The Metro for doing exactly what you're talking about but probably on far grander scale. Free pages destroy paid-for titles, and you're paying.
You’re not a Labour voting c*nt
You’re just a c*nt-1 -
Sunak now has lower ratings than Starmer in Scotland, -23% to -16% for Starmer north of the border.Burgessian said:eek said:Does Scotland like anyone except Saint Nicola Sturgeon?
Think Rishi had decent numbers up here at one point but probably in negative territory now.eek said:Does Scotland like anyone except Saint Nicola Sturgeon?
It's worth saying that at times Sturgeon's numbers have fallen whenever the focus goes away from Covid. It's why she's always been very keen on her TV Covid briefings.
Though overall UK wide Sunak is on -3% and Starmer on - 13%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/10/boris-johnsons-favourability-has-dropped-all-time-0 -
So no reason they can't do more of it. The point is they are happy to earn money commercially via a wide variety of means, but any talk of reducing the licence fee and they go full back to wigan pier mode of its the end of every show everybody likes.eek said:
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.
Rather than perhaps you could earn more commercially.2 -
He said he didn't shed a tear. You said you didn't shed a tear either. Seems an unnecessary beef TBH.Leon said:
I will confess to sadness, if not actual tears, when I hear about newspapers and magazines closing down. Which happens all too often. It means friends losing jobsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Why, did you actually cry about it?Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
C*nts like Farooq don't give a fuck, because they vote Labour
I can't say I shed a tear when the News of the World shut down. In fact, I seem to remember being pretty happy about it. In general though, having gone through the process myself in the past, I wouldn't wish redundancy on anyone.2 -
Off-topic, and sort-of from last thread;
An excellent speech by Margaret Thatcher from 1981 on the use of computers in schools:
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104609
Possibly as true today as it was then: although the Internet had transformed things further.1 -
OK, that is a fair point, but it isn't really related the one I was making, which was about funding models.FrancisUrquhart said:
No it is absolutely the point. Because they claim we are strictly impartial and unaffected by any commercial operations. But it accounts for a large amount of revenue and returns significant profits to fund the "public sector" element of the BBC.Endillion said:
That's not the point - which is that the BBC's core business doesn't need advertising because of the license fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....
UKTV isn't funded out of the license fee; it's a commercial operation that happens to be owned by the BBC.
They are riding two horses at once. And again anybody says well why are you doing all this commercial stuff, and they said if you stop us, we can't afford to produce the Archer, so shut up.0 -
Let's face it - Boris has saved us from Europe, and saved us from COVID-19.
We love him, and we owe him everything.
Anyone who wants to complain about him letting his hair down occasionally is more likely to be lynched than elected.1 -
BBC Food/Goodfood is an interesting one - I think they're both not long for this world. They're both being destroyed by YouTubers who have monetised their channels with adverts and click through revenue. I was watching a video for making some kind of Japanese beef, it had a few ads that I just lived with and it also had affiliate links to all of the equipment used in the video in the description where the recipe ingredients are typed out. I had a look and the chef probably makes somewhere in the region of $20-30k per month in advertising plus whatever he gets from click through. That's just one moderately successful chef specialising in Japanese dishes. He does them really well though and shows the exact method of how to make it well. Static web pages will never do that very well.
I don't see how BBC Food can compete with these people on any kind of scale, there's no way they can buy up the channels, they could hire chefs and monetise the videos but to get all kinds of cuisines they'd need an army of them and the channel just becomes cluttered or they need a network and there's no guarantee that they would be able to get their subscribers to cross subscribe.
In an age where my phone has got an almost 7" screen and there's chefs on YouTube offering advertising funded masterclasses why would I bother with a BBC Food written recipe from a chef who doesn't even specialise in the cuisine?0 -
And you a twit.Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
The responsibility for that change is about 99.9% the internet, 0.1% the BBC.
1 -
BBC Good Food is trying to make their app a subscription based model. I think they are in big trouble.MaxPB said:BBC Food/Goodfood is an interesting one - I think they're both not long for this world. They're both being destroyed by YouTubers who have monetised their channels with adverts and click through revenue. I was watching a video for making some kind of Japanese beef, it had a few ads that I just lived with and it also had affiliate links to all of the equipment used in the video in the description where the recipe ingredients are typed out. I had a look and the chef probably makes somewhere in the region of $20-30k per month in advertising plus whatever he gets from click through. That's just one moderately successful chef specialising in Japanese dishes. He does them really well though and shows the exact method of how to make it well. Static web pages will never do that very well.
I don't see how BBC Food can compete with these people on any kind of scale, there's no way they can buy up the channels, they could hire chefs and monetise the videos but to get all kinds of cuisines they'd need an army of them and the channel just becomes cluttered or they need a network and there's no guarantee that they would be able to get their subscribers to cross subscribe.
In an age where my phone has got an almost 7" screen and there's chefs on YouTube offering advertising funded masterclasses why would I bother with a BBC Food written recipe from a chef who doesn't even specialise in the cuisine?0 -
Gary Neville !!!!!!HYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham0 -
I suspect the issue is that the BBC are already earning as much as they can do commercially while stuck with the BBC Charter and licence fee and the commitments contained within it.FrancisUrquhart said:
So no reason they can't do more of it. The point is they are happy to earn money commercially via a wide variety of means, but any talk of reducing the licence fee and they go full back to wigan pier mode of its the end of every show everybody likes.eek said:
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.
Rather than perhaps you could earn more commercially.
The fact most people including you don't see that flaw is part of the reason why the BBC is so easy to attack from all sides.0 -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/16/can-prime-minister-change-do-tories-need-change-prime-minister/
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2022/01/falling-omicron-cases-and-conservative-poll-ratings.html
Check out the tory windowlickers almost universally hostile to BJ
Nick Timothy thinks the leaker is likely to hold back some plums for publication *after* Gray has reported.
We are in a phony war.1 -
He must have invited a substantial percentage of the population to parties by now.DougSeal said:
Johnson is more popular in London than anywhere else. Riddle me that.Leon said:Amazing that Remoaning, 2nd vote-demanding London lawyer Keir Starmer is mega-popular in Remoaning, 2nd-vote demanding Labour-voting London
Just saying.3 -
But that's the whole point, the current Charter and licence fee model is not fit for purpose. But at the same time, the BBC have a fit if anybody suggests reform.eek said:
I suspect the issue is that the BBC are already earning as much as they can do commercially while stuck with the BBC Charter and licence fee and the commitments contained within it.FrancisUrquhart said:
So no reason they can't do more of it. The point is they are happy to earn money commercially via a wide variety of means, but any talk of reducing the licence fee and they go full back to wigan pier mode of its the end of every show everybody likes.eek said:
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.
Rather than perhaps you could earn more commercially.
The fact most people including you don't see that flaw is part of the reason why the BBC is so easy to attack from all sides.
Their continued resistance to entertain change is causing them to be overtaken, but as soon as somebody suggests different all we get is stuff about how they made all this amazing stuff in the 80s and if there were made to do anything different insert popular show would have to be axed.1 -
Documentaries and a lot of lifestyle programs are all going that way. What's worth noting is the number of specialist channels that are turning towards patron and subscription services because the advertising is disappearing.MaxPB said:BBC Food/Goodfood is an interesting one - I think they're both not long for this world. They're both being destroyed by YouTubers who have monetised their channels with adverts and click through revenue. I was watching a video for making some kind of Japanese beef, it had a few ads that I just lived with and it also had affiliate links to all of the equipment used in the video in the description where the recipe ingredients are typed out. I had a look and the chef probably makes somewhere in the region of $20-30k per month in advertising plus whatever he gets from click through. That's just one moderately successful chef specialising in Japanese dishes. He does them really well though and shows the exact method of how to make it well. Static web pages will never do that very well.
I don't see how BBC Food can compete with these people on any kind of scale, there's no way they can buy up the channels, they could hire chefs and monetise the videos but to get all kinds of cuisines they'd need an army of them and the channel just becomes cluttered or they need a network and there's no guarantee that they would be able to get their subscribers to cross subscribe.
In an age where my phone has got an almost 7" screen and there's chefs on YouTube offering advertising funded masterclasses why would I bother with a BBC Food written recipe from a chef who doesn't even specialise in the cuisine?1 -
I doubt he would appeal to Manchester City fans!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Gary Neville !!!!!!HYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham0 -
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
0 -
There’s some mildly amusing TripAdviser reviews for 10 Downing Street up.0
-
From Wiki: "In anticipation of a by-election resulting from Margaret Ferrier's conduct in office, Ged Killen (Lab MP 2017-19) was re-selected as Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for Rutherglen and Hamilton West in January 2021."Burgessian said:Not sure if this news was picked up on PB at the time (from a week ago):
"MP Margaret Ferrier to face trial on Covid rule-breach charge" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59894859
Margaret Ferrier is the SNP MP (now sitting as an Independent) who, reportedly, travelled around the country rather inadvisedly.
Her seat, on the edge of Glasgow, is one of that small number that Labour regained from the SNP in 2017, only to lose again in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherglen_and_Hamilton_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
If it is a by-election, will be an absolute stonker. Fantastic opportunity for Scottish Labour to stage a recovery and give SNP a bloody nose (or vice-versa). Could put North Shropshire in the shade as the "significant by-election of our generation".
Jan 2021! And the trial not happening until Summer 2022...The wheels grinding exceedingly slow.0 -
The Charter isn't fit for purpose and the licence fee needs to be redesigned but you don't do that on a big bang basis - which is what has happened here.FrancisUrquhart said:
But that's the whole point, the current Charter and licence fee model is not fit for purpose. But at the same time, the BBC have a fit if anybody suggests reform.eek said:
I suspect the issue is that the BBC are already earning as much as they can do commercially while stuck with the BBC Charter and licence fee and the commitments contained within it.FrancisUrquhart said:
So no reason they can't do more of it. The point is they are happy to earn money commercially via a wide variety of means, but any talk of reducing the licence fee and they go full back to wigan pier mode of its the end of every show everybody likes.eek said:
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.
Rather than perhaps you could earn more commercially.
The fact most people including you don't see that flaw is part of the reason why the BBC is so easy to attack from all sides.
But the one thing you can't do is announce that things change in 5 years time when there are a whole pile of things that need to be solved before then - including a whole pile of cross issues such as broadcast transmitters that the BBC pay a disproportion amount of the cost of.2 -
What it also shows is the rise of "specialism". People increasingly don't want a general food program. They want to say learn how to make Japanese food, so they go and search out a specialist in that type of food.MaxPB said:BBC Food/Goodfood is an interesting one - I think they're both not long for this world. They're both being destroyed by YouTubers who have monetised their channels with adverts and click through revenue. I was watching a video for making some kind of Japanese beef, it had a few ads that I just lived with and it also had affiliate links to all of the equipment used in the video in the description where the recipe ingredients are typed out. I had a look and the chef probably makes somewhere in the region of $20-30k per month in advertising plus whatever he gets from click through. That's just one moderately successful chef specialising in Japanese dishes. He does them really well though and shows the exact method of how to make it well. Static web pages will never do that very well.
I don't see how BBC Food can compete with these people on any kind of scale, there's no way they can buy up the channels, they could hire chefs and monetise the videos but to get all kinds of cuisines they'd need an army of them and the channel just becomes cluttered or they need a network and there's no guarantee that they would be able to get their subscribers to cross subscribe.
In an age where my phone has got an almost 7" screen and there's chefs on YouTube offering advertising funded masterclasses why would I bother with a BBC Food written recipe from a chef who doesn't even specialise in the cuisine?
And people are willing to pay for this.0 -
Nothing has happened yet and ultimately I doubt it will. But the BBC should really be leading and say yes change is required, we need to reform in x, y and z, but all you hear is the dragging of feet and screaming like a toddler. They are like in the kid in the cereal aisle of the supermarket told they can't have super ultra sugary cereal this week, saying if they can't have it, I am going to do a big shit right here. They did it 10 years ago as well and its now caused them huge problems.eek said:
The Charter isn't fit for purpose and the licence fee needs to be redesigned but you don't do that on a big bang basis - which is what has happened here.FrancisUrquhart said:
But that's the whole point, the current Charter and licence fee model is not fit for purpose. But at the same time, the BBC have a fit if anybody suggests reform.eek said:
I suspect the issue is that the BBC are already earning as much as they can do commercially while stuck with the BBC Charter and licence fee and the commitments contained within it.FrancisUrquhart said:
So no reason they can't do more of it. The point is they are happy to earn money commercially via a wide variety of means, but any talk of reducing the licence fee and they go full back to wigan pier mode of its the end of every show everybody likes.eek said:
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.
Rather than perhaps you could earn more commercially.
The fact most people including you don't see that flaw is part of the reason why the BBC is so easy to attack from all sides.
But the one thing you can't do is announce that things change in 5 years time when there are a whole pile of things that need to be solved before then - including a whole pile of cross issues such as broadcast transmitters that the BBC pay a disproportion amount of the cost of.
The difference now is winnie the pooh and alike are just sitting there watching.2 -
Don't be so disparaging - London is a great place. You should come to visit some time.Leon said:Amazing that Remoaning, 2nd vote-demanding London lawyer Keir Starmer is mega-popular in Remoaning, 2nd-vote demanding Labour-voting London
Yes it's intimidating but you'll get used to it.6 -
You should have seen this place when NOTW was shut down by Murdoch, tears weren't in it, people were positively VOMITING with grief at that cruel, unjust event.OnlyLivingBoy said:
He said he didn't shed a tear. You said you didn't shed a tear either. Seems an unnecessary beef TBH.Leon said:
I will confess to sadness, if not actual tears, when I hear about newspapers and magazines closing down. Which happens all too often. It means friends losing jobsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Why, did you actually cry about it?Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
C*nts like Farooq don't give a fuck, because they vote Labour
I can't say I shed a tear when the News of the World shut down. In fact, I seem to remember being pretty happy about it. In general though, having gone through the process myself in the past, I wouldn't wish redundancy on anyone.3 -
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bounce then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
Burnham has positive appeal north of Watford, Starmer doesn't.
See also the 2021 locals where Starmer Labour won London but lost ground in the North and Midlands to the Tories and also fell behind the Scottish Conservatives again at Holyrood. Labour's hold in Wales was more Drakeford than Starmer. Tory losses in the South were more to the LDs and Greens than Labour.0 -
No, he is a travel journalist. I suspect the BBC turned him down for a job once and he gets annoyed that he isn't as good a writer as Gloria Hunniford.Farooq said:
That's much more like it, thank you.Leon said:
Ok sorry, I apologise.Farooq said:
I'll let you know if I ever vote Labour, so there can at least be some truth in the nonsense you talk.Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
I still don't understand why you aren't raging against The Metro for doing exactly what you're talking about but probably on far grander scale. Free pages destroy paid-for titles, and you're paying.
You’re not a Labour voting c*nt
You’re just a c*nt
You seem wildly irrational about this, I must say. Did someone steal your favourite secret recipe and publish it in a free magazine?0 -
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.2 -
Talking of telly,
The Voice: Dutch TV suspends show over sexual misconduct claims
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60022641
0 -
The interpretation of Ruglen as a by-elecxtion is of course complicated by the small matter that Ms Ferrier has not been a SNP MP since September 2020.Burgessian said:
From Wiki: "In anticipation of a by-election resulting from Margaret Ferrier's conduct in office, Ged Killen (Lab MP 2017-19) was re-selected as Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for Rutherglen and Hamilton West in January 2021."Burgessian said:Not sure if this news was picked up on PB at the time (from a week ago):
"MP Margaret Ferrier to face trial on Covid rule-breach charge" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59894859
Margaret Ferrier is the SNP MP (now sitting as an Independent) who, reportedly, travelled around the country rather inadvisedly.
Her seat, on the edge of Glasgow, is one of that small number that Labour regained from the SNP in 2017, only to lose again in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherglen_and_Hamilton_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
If it is a by-election, will be an absolute stonker. Fantastic opportunity for Scottish Labour to stage a recovery and give SNP a bloody nose (or vice-versa). Could put North Shropshire in the shade as the "significant by-election of our generation".
Jan 2021! And the trial not happening until Summer 2022...The wheels grinding exceedingly slow.0 -
There is a significant aspect to my career that owes a lot to this programme in the 1980s. I grew up with Acorn computers (BBC B, initially) and learnt to program on them with my final Acorn a "Risc PC" before Acorn sadly went out of business. Although I am not a pure programmer now, there have been aspects in all my job roles where a solid technical foundation and being able to get one's hands dirty with coding have been extremely useful. I am sure there are many, many people like myself.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic, and sort-of from last thread;
An excellent speech by Margaret Thatcher from 1981 on the use of computers in schools:
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104609
Possibly as true today as it was then: although the Internet had transformed things further.4 -
It's no Wick though.TOPPING said:
Don't be so disparaging - London is a great place. You should come to visit some time.Leon said:Amazing that Remoaning, 2nd vote-demanding London lawyer Keir Starmer is mega-popular in Remoaning, 2nd-vote demanding Labour-voting London
Yes it's intimidating but you'll get used to it.0 -
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.1 -
Thank you for your comment.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.
The fact that you disagree with my statement that "If he gets popular again he will get more popular" is just one further indication of Chris's Law of the Internet - that no matter how self-evidently true a statement is, someone on the Internet will disagree with it.
Thank you so much. ;-)0 -
Not necessarily, no, but in this particular case yes. Boris's position changes from the penthouse suite on floor 150 to the basement, SKS is incapable of moving from the 7th floor.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.
0 -
I didn't disagree with it. Just that you are saying something different to what HYUFD is saying.Chris said:
Thank you for your comment.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.
The fact that you disagree with my statement that "If he gets popular again he will get more popular" is just one further indication of Chris's Law of the Internet - that no matter how self-evidently true a statement is, someone on the Internet will disagree with it.
Thank you so much. ;-)1 -
Starmer doesn't have particularly great figures, so there is certainly room for improvement.IshmaelZ said:
Not necessarily, no, but in this particular case yes. Boris's position changes from the penthouse suite on floor 150 to the basement, SKS is incapable of moving from the 7th floor.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.0 -
I hope so. This is looking a bit 'close but no cigar' to me atm. Focus is slipping from his lying and his cowardice onto a 'kennel needs cleaning but we won't shoot the dog' type formulation.IshmaelZ said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/16/can-prime-minister-change-do-tories-need-change-prime-minister/
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2022/01/falling-omicron-cases-and-conservative-poll-ratings.html
Check out the tory windowlickers almost universally hostile to BJ
Nick Timothy thinks the leaker is likely to hold back some plums for publication *after* Gray has reported.
We are in a phony war.
I'd like to see a stone-cold killer revelation next. Something so bad that he not only has to resign but has to wear a bag over his head in public for the foreseeable future.0 -
Which may not be a problem now, would be if Boris has a Lazarus like recovery or Sunak becomes Tory leader and moves back into the penthouse suiteIshmaelZ said:
Not necessarily, no, but in this particular case yes. Boris's position changes from the penthouse suite on floor 150 to the basement, SKS is incapable of moving from the 7th floor.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.0 -
I suspect once Johnson has been dispatched, UK politics will become less presidential.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bounce then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
Burnham has positive appeal north of Watford, Starmer doesn't.
See also the 2021 locals where Starmer Labour won London but lost ground in the North and Midlands to the Tories and also fell behind the Scottish Conservatives again at Holyrood. Labour's hold in Wales was more Drakeford than Starmer. Tory losses in the South were more to the LDs and Greens than Labour.
Starmer mirrors Welsh Labour in many ways.
Labour are seen as moderately useless, but by no means as bad as the Welsh Conservatives, who are, mainly through their personnel, an absolute laughing stock. One would have expected Johnson's spring sheen to have rubbed off on them. It didn't.0 -
You know the former is never going to happen and the latter is very unlikely. The best the Tories can hope for at the next GE is damage limitationHYUFD said:
Which may not be a problem now, would be if Boris has a Lazarus like recovery or Sunak becomes Tory leader and moves back into the penthouse suiteIshmaelZ said:
Not necessarily, no, but in this particular case yes. Boris's position changes from the penthouse suite on floor 150 to the basement, SKS is incapable of moving from the 7th floor.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.0 -
A few people were posting the John Cleese BBC selfvert ‘what has the BBC done for us’ missing the point it is a very old advert from 1986. It, and it’s fans online, wallow in the past.FrancisUrquhart said:
But that's the whole point, the current Charter and licence fee model is not fit for purpose. But at the same time, the BBC have a fit if anybody suggests reform.eek said:
I suspect the issue is that the BBC are already earning as much as they can do commercially while stuck with the BBC Charter and licence fee and the commitments contained within it.FrancisUrquhart said:
So no reason they can't do more of it. The point is they are happy to earn money commercially via a wide variety of means, but any talk of reducing the licence fee and they go full back to wigan pier mode of its the end of every show everybody likes.eek said:
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.
Rather than perhaps you could earn more commercially.
The fact most people including you don't see that flaw is part of the reason why the BBC is so easy to attack from all sides.
Their continued resistance to entertain change is causing them to be overtaken, but as soon as somebody suggests different all we get is stuff about how they made all this amazing stuff in the 80s and if there were made to do anything different insert popular show would have to be axed.0 -
Well, you said "Not necessarily" in response to "If he gets popular again he will get more popular."RobD said:
I didn't disagree with it..Chris said:
Thank you for your comment.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.
The fact that you disagree with my statement that "If he gets popular again he will get more popular" is just one further indication of Chris's Law of the Internet - that no matter how self-evidently true a statement is, someone on the Internet will disagree with it.
Thank you so much. ;-)
I think it would be fair to put down "I didn't disagree with it" as a further vindication of Chris's Law, in the sense of denying what's self-evident.
Please feel free to carry on adding to my collection ...0 -
Ahem, the Welsh Conservatives got their highest number of Senedd seats ever last May. Just Drakeford squeezed Plaid and the LDs and the Greens to hold onto most seatsMexicanpete said:
I suspect once Johnson has been dispatched, UK politics will become less presidential.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bounce then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
Burnham has positive appeal north of Watford, Starmer doesn't.
See also the 2021 locals where Starmer Labour won London but lost ground in the North and Midlands to the Tories and also fell behind the Scottish Conservatives again at Holyrood. Labour's hold in Wales was more Drakeford than Starmer. Tory losses in the South were more to the LDs and Greens than Labour.
Starmer mirrors Welsh Labour in many ways.
Labour are seen as moderately useless, but by no means as bad as the Welsh Conservatives, who are, mainly through their personnel, an absolute laughing stock. One would have expected Johnson's spring sheen to have rubbed off on them. It didn't.0 -
Something rather ironic it being John Cleese who most definitely isn't the sort of person the BBC would be looking to commission work from these days and who himself seems to be very pissed of with Auntie.Taz said:
A few people were posting the John Cleese BBC selfvert ‘what has the BBC done for us’ missing the point it is a very old advert from 1986. It, and it’s fans online, wallow in the past.FrancisUrquhart said:
But that's the whole point, the current Charter and licence fee model is not fit for purpose. But at the same time, the BBC have a fit if anybody suggests reform.eek said:
I suspect the issue is that the BBC are already earning as much as they can do commercially while stuck with the BBC Charter and licence fee and the commitments contained within it.FrancisUrquhart said:
So no reason they can't do more of it. The point is they are happy to earn money commercially via a wide variety of means, but any talk of reducing the licence fee and they go full back to wigan pier mode of its the end of every show everybody likes.eek said:
UKTV was set up with Government Approval to explicitly earn more money for the BBC so that they were not completely reliant on the License Fee.FrancisUrquhart said:
I know it is owned by BBC Worldwide. But revenue flows from one to the other. The idea that the BBC never gets involved in an grubby ad dependent businesses is nonsense.eek said:
UKTV isn't the BBC - it's owned at arms length...FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Its all part of the stupid current setup, well we are this, but not that, but really also this....we couldn't possibly for x, because we are public sector, but we also have own these private businesses.
Its a bit like MPs and second jobs.....that second job is definitely totally irrelevant to my commitment to the cause of public service.
The fact it's profitable shows that it works.
Rather than perhaps you could earn more commercially.
The fact most people including you don't see that flaw is part of the reason why the BBC is so easy to attack from all sides.
Their continued resistance to entertain change is causing them to be overtaken, but as soon as somebody suggests different all we get is stuff about how they made all this amazing stuff in the 80s and if there were made to do anything different insert popular show would have to be axed.
John Cleese to complain over BBC interview
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59681167
1 -
OK so Johnson's spring sheen did rub off onto them, I stand corrected.HYUFD said:
Ahem, the Welsh Conservatives got their highest number of Senedd seats ever last May. Just Drakeford avoided any Labour leakage to Plaid or the Greens to hold onto most seatsMexicanpete said:
I suspect once Johnson has been dispatched, UK politics will become less presidential.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bounce then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
Burnham has positive appeal north of Watford, Starmer doesn't.
See also the 2021 locals where Starmer Labour won London but lost ground in the North and Midlands to the Tories and also fell behind the Scottish Conservatives again at Holyrood. Labour's hold in Wales was more Drakeford than Starmer. Tory losses in the South were more to the LDs and Greens than Labour.
Starmer mirrors Welsh Labour in many ways.
Labour are seen as moderately useless, but by no means as bad as the Welsh Conservatives, who are, mainly through their personnel, an absolute laughing stock. One would have expected Johnson's spring sheen to have rubbed off on them. It didn't.1 -
I took "Boris' net approval rating" to mean compared to Starmer, sorry about that.Chris said:
Well, you said "Not necessarily" in response to "If he gets popular again he will get more popular."RobD said:
I didn't disagree with it..Chris said:
Thank you for your comment.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.
The fact that you disagree with my statement that "If he gets popular again he will get more popular" is just one further indication of Chris's Law of the Internet - that no matter how self-evidently true a statement is, someone on the Internet will disagree with it.
Thank you so much. ;-)
I think it would be fair to put down "I didn't disagree with it" as a further vindication of Chris's Law, in the sense of denying what's self-evident.
Please feel free to carry on adding to my collection ...
But that means you were claiming HYUFD said something that he didn't.1 -
A possible way the PM survives this:
Gray report says rotten culture but not damning on PM knowledge; Big mea culpa + clearout of inner circle; More letters go in but 54 not hit; Major move to address April cost of living crunch; better than expected May locals. (Theoretically)
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/14830980956343296000 -
Lots of wishful thinking there....was it written by the Big Dog himself?Scott_xP said:A possible way the PM survives this:
Gray report says rotten culture but not damning on PM knowledge; Big mea culpa + clearout of inner circle; More letters go in but 54 not hit; Major move to address April cost of living crunch; better than expected May locals. (Theoretically)
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/14830980956343296000 -
It's not my fault if you can't read well enough to understand "If he gets popular again he will get more popular", and want to pick an argument over it.RobD said:
I took "Boris' net approval rating" to mean compared to Starmer, sorry about that.Chris said:
Well, you said "Not necessarily" in response to "If he gets popular again he will get more popular."RobD said:
I didn't disagree with it..Chris said:
Thank you for your comment.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.
The fact that you disagree with my statement that "If he gets popular again he will get more popular" is just one further indication of Chris's Law of the Internet - that no matter how self-evidently true a statement is, someone on the Internet will disagree with it.
Thank you so much. ;-)
I think it would be fair to put down "I didn't disagree with it" as a further vindication of Chris's Law, in the sense of denying what's self-evident.
Please feel free to carry on adding to my collection ...
But that means you were claiming HYUFD said something that he didn't.
Get thee to a primary school, for heaven's sake.0 -
Lord above.
Three full days of bantering on about the bloody telly.
Somebody make it stop.2 -
We could talk about the new mutant version of Omicron instead ;-)Anabobazina said:Lord above.
Three full days of bantering on about the bloody telly.
Somebody make it stop.0 -
At the moment Starmer is measuring the No 10 curtains, much like Kinnock was in 1990 when Labour had a big lead over Thatcher's Tories. However the Tories had replaced their leader by Christmas and Major narrowly beat Kinnock against the odds in 1992.Nigel_Foremain said:
You know the former is never going to happen and the latter is very unlikely. The best the Tories can hope for at the next GE is damage limitationHYUFD said:
Which may not be a problem now, would be if Boris has a Lazarus like recovery or Sunak becomes Tory leader and moves back into the penthouse suiteIshmaelZ said:
Not necessarily, no, but in this particular case yes. Boris's position changes from the penthouse suite on floor 150 to the basement, SKS is incapable of moving from the 7th floor.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.
It was then only Blair who finally led Labour back into power in 1997. Starmer must be concerned he is Kinnock 2 and maybe Sunak is Major 2 to Boris' Thatcher and Burnham is actually Labour's Blair even if it looks good for now for him against Boris0 -
Boris is no Lazarus and Sunak (if it is he) will get a massive honeymoon bounce. As the currently wobbly wheels fall off the economy that might well dissipate in the medium term.HYUFD said:
Which may not be a problem now, would be if Boris has a Lazarus like recovery or Sunak becomes Tory leader and moves back into the penthouse suiteIshmaelZ said:
Not necessarily, no, but in this particular case yes. Boris's position changes from the penthouse suite on floor 150 to the basement, SKS is incapable of moving from the 7th floor.RobD said:
Not necessarily. They are discussing relative approval. An improvement in the Tories’ performance alone does not necessarily mean they get more popular relative to Labour.Chris said:
You've put your finger on the essential point. Boris's net approval ratings are bad only because he is unpopular. If he gets popular again he will get more popular.HYUFD said:
Starmer is only getting that because Boris is currently unpopular, he is still only popular in London.IshmaelZ said:
No, presenting it like this is giving you a false sense of securityHYUFD said:This polling shows quite clearly that the Tories are heading for big losses to Labour in London in May but the results may not be so bad in the locals elsewhere. Starmer is still very much a North London Labour leader with his strongest appeal in the capital.
If Labour want a leader who can really appeal in the North and Midlands (and not just because he is not Boris), they still probably need Burnham
Shameless theft from @Pro_Rata downthread
Starmer net approval advantage over Johnson:
London +42
South +39
North +43
Midlands +45
Scotland +64
If Boris becomes popular again or Sunak replaces him and the Tories get a bound then the North and Midlands will likely shift back in the Tory direction again.
As always, I'm astonished you don't charge people for the service you provide here.0 -
Triumph for op Save Big Dog/Dead Meat.Anabobazina said:Lord above.
Three full days of bantering on about the bloody telly.
Somebody make it stop.
3 -
Off topic. Remember that 'rocket', 'UAP', 'aeroplane' (delete as appropriate). As luck would have it I have just seen and captured a very similar image (of a common or garden plane with contrail at the right angle to the viewer). Apologies for the 90 degree rotation...
2 -
Yes. A few months ago I decided to master Singapore chicken laksa, a quite complex but amazing dish if done properlyMaxPB said:BBC Food/Goodfood is an interesting one - I think they're both not long for this world. They're both being destroyed by YouTubers who have monetised their channels with adverts and click through revenue. I was watching a video for making some kind of Japanese beef, it had a few ads that I just lived with and it also had affiliate links to all of the equipment used in the video in the description where the recipe ingredients are typed out. I had a look and the chef probably makes somewhere in the region of $20-30k per month in advertising plus whatever he gets from click through. That's just one moderately successful chef specialising in Japanese dishes. He does them really well though and shows the exact method of how to make it well. Static web pages will never do that very well.
I don't see how BBC Food can compete with these people on any kind of scale, there's no way they can buy up the channels, they could hire chefs and monetise the videos but to get all kinds of cuisines they'd need an army of them and the channel just becomes cluttered or they need a network and there's no guarantee that they would be able to get their subscribers to cross subscribe.
In an age where my phone has got an almost 7" screen and there's chefs on YouTube offering advertising funded masterclasses why would I bother with a BBC Food written recipe from a chef who doesn't even specialise in the cuisine?
I browsed BBC food, but all their recipes were way too simplistic. I looked at a couple of famous tv chefs - just didn’t seem right. Quirky yet misguided
Then I found this. A woman in Australia who has basically dedicated her life to creating THE recipe for Singapore chicken laksa. Free on the internet along with explanatory videos
I followed the recipe and Wow, it is superb. Exactly what you’d get in a brilliant laksa restaurant in Singapore (I added dashi)
https://www.recipetineats.com/laksa-soup/
Incredible specialisation. Fantastically well done. No one can compete with that - in terms of laksa. Tho I wonder how the writer makes any money?!0 -
It happened a lot and I can understand why @Leon might be angry. I knew plenty of people who were.Farooq said:
That's much more like it, thank you.Leon said:
Ok sorry, I apologise.Farooq said:
I'll let you know if I ever vote Labour, so there can at least be some truth in the nonsense you talk.Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
I still don't understand why you aren't raging against The Metro for doing exactly what you're talking about but probably on far grander scale. Free pages destroy paid-for titles, and you're paying.
You’re not a Labour voting c*nt
You’re just a c*nt
You seem wildly irrational about this, I must say. Did someone steal your favourite secret recipe and publish it in a free magazine?
I used to freelance for Future Publishing back in the '90s and there were at least two occasions when launches by BBC Magazines killed off Future titles.
One was Future's Classic CD, which was enormously successful (gold disc in Future's Beaufort Street reception, that sort of thing) until the BBC came along and launched BBC Music Magazine. All of a sudden Classic CD became a dead man walking. Circulation plummetted from 100k+ to 8k. You simply can't compete with the blanket advertising and cross-promotion the BBC had.
The second was a vegetarian food magazine. Future had hired the staff, produced dummies, booked promotions with Smiths, all of that. Then they got wind that the BBC was launching BBC Vegetarian Good Food magazine. Project pulled, instantly.
What's the public interest in launching magazines about vegetarianism and classical music when the market is willing to provide them? I don't get it.
That said, I don't share Leon's worry that the BBC killed off local papers. The vulture owners like Newsquest and whatever David "Rommel" Montgomery is running this week managed that just fine by themselves.2 -
NYTimes manages it. But then again, it's about 100x better than the BBC version.FrancisUrquhart said:
BBC Good Food is trying to make their app a subscription based model. I think they are in big trouble.MaxPB said:BBC Food/Goodfood is an interesting one - I think they're both not long for this world. They're both being destroyed by YouTubers who have monetised their channels with adverts and click through revenue. I was watching a video for making some kind of Japanese beef, it had a few ads that I just lived with and it also had affiliate links to all of the equipment used in the video in the description where the recipe ingredients are typed out. I had a look and the chef probably makes somewhere in the region of $20-30k per month in advertising plus whatever he gets from click through. That's just one moderately successful chef specialising in Japanese dishes. He does them really well though and shows the exact method of how to make it well. Static web pages will never do that very well.
I don't see how BBC Food can compete with these people on any kind of scale, there's no way they can buy up the channels, they could hire chefs and monetise the videos but to get all kinds of cuisines they'd need an army of them and the channel just becomes cluttered or they need a network and there's no guarantee that they would be able to get their subscribers to cross subscribe.
In an age where my phone has got an almost 7" screen and there's chefs on YouTube offering advertising funded masterclasses why would I bother with a BBC Food written recipe from a chef who doesn't even specialise in the cuisine?0 -
What Fruity Leon needs the most (imho) is for Giles Coren to choke on a fishbone. This would open up many many slots - print, radio, telly, you name it - in the food, travel and antiwoke (dim)wittering space.Nigel_Foremain said:
No, he is a travel journalist. I suspect the BBC turned him down for a job once and he gets annoyed that he isn't as good a writer as Gloria Hunniford.Farooq said:
That's much more like it, thank you.Leon said:
Ok sorry, I apologise.Farooq said:
I'll let you know if I ever vote Labour, so there can at least be some truth in the nonsense you talk.Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
I still don't understand why you aren't raging against The Metro for doing exactly what you're talking about but probably on far grander scale. Free pages destroy paid-for titles, and you're paying.
You’re not a Labour voting c*nt
You’re just a c*nt
You seem wildly irrational about this, I must say. Did someone steal your favourite secret recipe and publish it in a free magazine?4 -
Mad Nad is trying her best to make it stop. (The BBC that is).Anabobazina said:Lord above.
Three full days of bantering on about the bloody telly.
Somebody make it stop.0 -
Two things there:Nigelb said:
And you a twit.Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
The responsibility for that change is about 99.9% the internet, 0.1% the BBC.
1. The BBC is funding 165 reporter gigs at local papers across the country, generating a lot of what used to be their core content (local councils and courts etc) as a shareable agency feed to keep local outlets sustainable.
2. The BBC's current provision of local news online is next to non-existent thanks to a mix of regulatory hobbling, self-restriction and silo working. Anyone whose business it has trampled doesn't deserve to have one (eg - the BBC site for Herts, Beds & Bucks currently has three stories written today... which compared to local news sites for Bedford, Luton, Hitchin, St Albans, MK and Aylesbury, erm, isn't much).
1 -
I think his ratings are OK - if you take General Elections as essentially referenda on Gov't then he looks like the ultimate neutral alternative outside of London and Scotland where he is actively liked and disliked.0
-
Its a good thing - we are no longer obsessing about covid (well most of us, @Leon is still prowling the darkest recesses of twitter for a bit more fear and dread, just as he posted that we are half way through winter.*Anabobazina said:Lord above.
Three full days of bantering on about the bloody telly.
Somebody make it stop.
*Although that's a very tricky subject...2 -
A 13-episode, five season, pay-TV docudrama about a flesh-eating covid variant UFO that invaded Taiwan from its base in the Alpha Centauri system would be basic Monday afternoon fodder on PB.FrancisUrquhart said:
We could talk about the new mutant version of Omicron instead ;-)Anabobazina said:Lord above.
Three full days of bantering on about the bloody telly.
Somebody make it stop.1 -
Smarkets VONC of Boris by 1922 cttee before next GE 71% chance
https://smarkets.com/event/42507921/politics/uk/uk-party-leaders/boris-johnson-to-face-vote-of-no-confidence
Settles Yes if VONC triggered but BJ still goes before it happens
Value if any in laying I think0 -
I keep telling you all, Bozza is going nowhere.Scott_xP said:A possible way the PM survives this:
Gray report says rotten culture but not damning on PM knowledge; Big mea culpa + clearout of inner circle; More letters go in but 54 not hit; Major move to address April cost of living crunch; better than expected May locals. (Theoretically)
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/14830980956343296000 -
Is that the show Matt Hancock watched that caused him to panic over covid?Anabobazina said:
A 13-episode, five season, pay-TV docudrama about a flesh-eating covid variant UFO that invaded Taiwan from its base in the Alpha Centauri system would be basic Monday afternoon fodder on PB.FrancisUrquhart said:
We could talk about the new mutant version of Omicron instead ;-)Anabobazina said:Lord above.
Three full days of bantering on about the bloody telly.
Somebody make it stop.1 -
Careful. You will confuse them with actual evidenceEl_Capitano said:
It happened a lot and I can understand why @Leon might be angry. I knew plenty of people who were.Farooq said:
That's much more like it, thank you.Leon said:
Ok sorry, I apologise.Farooq said:
I'll let you know if I ever vote Labour, so there can at least be some truth in the nonsense you talk.Leon said:
Sorry, you, a left leaning Labour voter, can't bring yourself to shed a tear for the journalists who lose their jobs on local papers, specialist magazines, because the BBC just stomps all over their business model and destroys their profits?Farooq said:
Not that it matters anyway. However it's funded, we pay in the end, and the free pages affect the business of the paid-for titles. I can't really bring myself to shed a tear for them.FrancisUrquhart said:
What do you mean, the BBC do plenty of advertising. Try going onto the BBC website when you are overseas, there are ads. Or watch, Dave Comedy in association with Cobra Beer....Endillion said:
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.Farooq said:Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
You really are such lovely people
I still don't understand why you aren't raging against The Metro for doing exactly what you're talking about but probably on far grander scale. Free pages destroy paid-for titles, and you're paying.
You’re not a Labour voting c*nt
You’re just a c*nt
You seem wildly irrational about this, I must say. Did someone steal your favourite secret recipe and publish it in a free magazine?
I used to freelance for Future Publishing back in the '90s and there were at least two occasions when launches by BBC Magazines killed off Future titles.
One was Future's Classic CD, which was enormously successful (gold disc in Future's Beaufort Street reception, that sort of thing) until the BBC came along and launched BBC Music Magazine. All of a sudden Classic CD became a dead man walking. Circulation plummetted from 100k+ to 8k. You simply can't compete with the blanket advertising and cross-promotion the BBC had.
The second was a vegetarian food magazine. Future had hired the staff, produced dummies, booked promotions with Smiths, all of that. Then they got wind that the BBC was launching BBC Vegetarian Good Food magazine. Project pulled, instantly.
What's the public interest in launching magazines about vegetarianism and classical music when the market is willing to provide them? I don't get it.
That said, I don't share Leon's worry that the BBC killed off local papers. The vulture owners like Newsquest and whatever David "Rommel" Montgomery is running this week managed that just fine by themselves.1 -
Are you sure about NYTimes involvement. I can't see any mention to that anywhere. Its owned by Immediate Media which in turn is owned by a Germany media group.rcs1000 said:
NYTimes manages it. But then again, it's about 100x better than the BBC version.FrancisUrquhart said:
BBC Good Food is trying to make their app a subscription based model. I think they are in big trouble.MaxPB said:BBC Food/Goodfood is an interesting one - I think they're both not long for this world. They're both being destroyed by YouTubers who have monetised their channels with adverts and click through revenue. I was watching a video for making some kind of Japanese beef, it had a few ads that I just lived with and it also had affiliate links to all of the equipment used in the video in the description where the recipe ingredients are typed out. I had a look and the chef probably makes somewhere in the region of $20-30k per month in advertising plus whatever he gets from click through. That's just one moderately successful chef specialising in Japanese dishes. He does them really well though and shows the exact method of how to make it well. Static web pages will never do that very well.
I don't see how BBC Food can compete with these people on any kind of scale, there's no way they can buy up the channels, they could hire chefs and monetise the videos but to get all kinds of cuisines they'd need an army of them and the channel just becomes cluttered or they need a network and there's no guarantee that they would be able to get their subscribers to cross subscribe.
In an age where my phone has got an almost 7" screen and there's chefs on YouTube offering advertising funded masterclasses why would I bother with a BBC Food written recipe from a chef who doesn't even specialise in the cuisine?
I noted you said "managed", but I can't see any reference to that.0
