HAS LABOUR CAUGHT UP WITH THE SNP IN SCOTTISH GENERAL ELECTION POLLING? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?StuartDickson said:
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.state_go_away said:Love the all capitals header!
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)5 -
Spoken like a true Tory Boy. Harry Enfield eat your heart out.Casino_Royale said:
Rivers are actually a problem in England and Wales.ping said:
Isn’t the reality with the shit in the rivers, that in order to not have shit in the rivers, requires replacing billions of miles of sewage pipes at an astronomical cost and decades of disruption?Leon said:
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Linekerping said:Very ex-PBer, Tim, on Twitter;
https://twitter.com/exstrategist/status/1634425658104225792
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
Like, is there the democratic will to double everyone’s water bill for the next twenty years to actually fix the problem?
I suspect not.
We pump and drain far too much shit into them, for a first world country, and far too many of them are "private" and totally inaccessible to people.
I'd say there's also a problem with lack of access for bathing/swimming, which I'd love. But the problem with that is that if you get too many feral chavs and their dogs going there that's just as bad and will introduce all sorts of nasty chemical and bodily pollution back into the rivers, as well as tonnes of litter.0 -
I liked him, and I'm not a great follower of the sport.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
His enthusiasm was genuine, and even his gaffes were endearingly amusing. He didn't take himself too seriously, as evidenced by the time he did a commentary for Wacky Races. He also did a warm and revealing Desert Island discs.
I think he was a good commentator, albeit in a unique and personal style.2 -
How far is that the case? For the serious expert follower of the sport, probably. For those watching as a "national event", or even listening in to a conversation between mates while some sport goes on (see TMS), rather less so. And I suspect that there are more of the second than the first, especially if we're thinking about BBC One late on Saturday night.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, Allen was hamstrung by ITV trying to force him into a Murray Walker-mould of excitement rather than being himself.
Mr. Sandpit, many commentators seem to forget people are there for sport rather than their witty presence.
In a world where multiple streams are easy to do, it's surprising that "just the sport, no witty banter" streams are so rare. If they were popular, you'd expect someone entrepreneurial to offer them.0 -
I highly recommend The Vietnam War: an intimate history, the book based on the excellent Ken Burns documentary
It’s arguably better than the tv series. Moving, profound, brilliantly detailed. Eloquent
It also shows the utter futility and ugliness of trying to invade and pacify a country with no desire to be pacified. Or invaded
Russia has earned itself a decade of pain
0 -
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.Leon said:
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?StuartDickson said:
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.state_go_away said:Love the all capitals header!
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.0 -
What do they have to apologise for ?StuartDickson said:
If this “error” (we await R&W response) is explained, will Wulfrun and PB will devote A NEW THREAD to the apology?tlg86 said:Excellent work Wulfrun Phil. I’d be wary of reading too much into this poll. It’s possible the error is in what’s shown before the final output.
Ho ho.
Punters beware.
The anomaly is notable, and is noted.
Other than evidently driving you to distraction, no harm done.
Of course we'll have to see what other polls show before the explanation for the anomaly, and the state of Scottish opinion becomes clear.
0 -
Ian Robertson on Rugby was a class commentator.ydoethur said:
If we're including commentators, I actually preferred James Allen for F1 although he wasn't great as a trackside talking head. But the granddaddy of them all was Peter O'Sullevan, and he never did punditry so far as I know.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
The all time great was Bill McClaren, of course.1 -
Off topic.
Key message is less convenience food (8)0 -
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.StuartDickson said:
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.Dura_Ace said:
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.Penddu2 said:Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
Aberdeenshire Central
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Dumfries and Galloway
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale0 -
But but but Sean read it. And Sean believed it. So it must be true.Foxy said:
Yes, pressure waves destroy internal organs, but I cannot see a reason why eyes should pop out. I suspect a tall tale that became myth.Dura_Ace said:
I've seen (in person and very close up) the remains of people killed by blast overpressure from a GBU-24 (2,000lb of precision guided high explosive freedom) and all had their eyes if little else so the VC eyes were probably eaten by the local wildlife or something.Leon said:Listening to The Vietnam War: an Intimate History on audible at Danang Airport. Few better places to listen to it
It’s the book version of that great Ken Burns documentary
One detail has struck me: re the intensity of the US bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail (in terms of density more bombs were dropped on these jungle tracks than in any war before)
Sometimes the US soldiers would come across an entire platoon of viet cong, all dead, in a jungle clearing, and apparently all unharmed. Except that the concussive power of the explosions had blasted the eyeballs out of all the Vietnamese heads
You are undoubtedly a fraud. PB hereby removes you licence to practice medicine.0 -
Good morning everybody.Peter_the_Punter said:
I liked him, and I'm not a great follower of the sport.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
His enthusiasm was genuine, and even his gaffes were endearingly amusing. He didn't take himself too seriously, as evidenced by the time he did a commentary for Wacky Races. He also did a warm and revealing Desert Island discs.
I think he was a good commentator, albeit in a unique and personal style.
Murray Walker was also a very nice chap, according to my son who knew him at Formula One.4 -
You did exactly this yesterday. Quoted a poll that was flattering to the SNP. Failed to mention it was a sub sampleStuartDickson said:
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.Leon said:
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?StuartDickson said:
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.state_go_away said:Love the all capitals header!
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
Didn’t this get you banned at one point? Tsk1 -
Year ago, I encountered MW. I was heading home from work early sick with a bad case of flu. He was in the same carriage.Peter_the_Punter said:
I liked him, and I'm not a great follower of the sport.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, to be fair, Murray Walker was very good. Commentator rather than pundit, of course.
His enthusiasm was genuine, and even his gaffes were endearingly amusing. He didn't take himself too seriously, as evidenced by the time he did a commentary for Wacky Races. He also did a warm and revealing Desert Island discs.
I think he was a good commentator, albeit in a unique and personal style.
In my fever, pale and compromised state, I became fixated on him. “It’s Murray Walker, I’m sure” I thought. I must have been staring him out and looked even more dodgy than usual. He got up and left for the next carriage.0 -
Mr. Punter, nothing can beat "There's nothing wrong with the car except that it's on fire."
Mr. Romford, to be fair, businesses can make bad decisions that seem inexplicable. Ratner, or, more recently, the MCU and Star Wars diluting their brands by subpar films and excessive content at the expense of quality.
Going back a bit, but Star Wars junking the expanded universe when it was bought by Disney was just nuts. A film series based on Zahn's Thrawn trilogy would've been a slam dunk box office success.0 -
OT. Suella Braverman's offense is apparently exacerbated by her children having Jewish blood.
You couldn't make this woman up!-1 -
“Driving you to distraction “. Classic strawman.Nigelb said:
What do they have to apologise for ?StuartDickson said:
If this “error” (we await R&W response) is explained, will Wulfrun and PB will devote A NEW THREAD to the apology?tlg86 said:Excellent work Wulfrun Phil. I’d be wary of reading too much into this poll. It’s possible the error is in what’s shown before the final output.
Ho ho.
Punters beware.
The anomaly is notable, and is noted.
Other than evidently driving you to distraction, no harm done.
Of course we'll have to see what other polls show before the explanation for the anomaly, and the state of Scottish opinion becomes clear.
If I’d just ignored the header some other insult would have been rolled out. PB eye-swivelling at its best.0 -
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.0 -
You need to look at more data than this before drawing such conclusions. It's possible that large variations in the turnout filter from poll-to-poll are normal for the R&W polls, such that a rogue poll with an unusually uncertain sample of 2019GE Labour voters is not so outlandish.
Looking at two data points is enough to spark interest in looking further, but I personally wouldn't be publishing on that scanty basis myself.
You'd almost be better off aggregating subsamples.0 -
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?Leon said:
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Linekerping said:Very ex-PBer, Tim, on Twitter;
https://twitter.com/exstrategist/status/1634425658104225792
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute1 -
TLDRNigelb said:Really good article which explains the SVB failure, for those interested.
https://www.netinterest.co/p/the-demise-of-silicon-valley-bank
...Driven by the boom in venture capital funding, many of Silicon Valley’s customers became flush with cash over 2020 and 2021. Between the end of 2019 and the first quarter of 2022, the bank’s deposit balances more than tripled to $198 billion (including a small acquisition of Boston Private Financial Holdings). This compares with industry deposit growth of “only” 37% over the period. Around two-thirds of the deposits were non-interest-bearing demand deposits and the rest offered a small rate of interest. All-in, at the end of 2022, the cost of Silicon Valley’s deposits was 1.17% (up from 0.04% at the end of 2021).
The bank invested the bulk of these deposits in securities. It adopted a two-pronged strategy: to shelter some of its liquidity in shorter duration available-for-sale securities, while reaching for yield with a longer duration held-to-maturity book. On a cost basis, the shorter duration AFS book grew from $13.9 billion at the end of 2019 to $27.3 billion at its peak in the first quarter of 2022; the longer duration HTM book grew by much more: from $13.8 billion to $98.7 billion. Part of the increase reflects a transfer of $8.8 billion of securities from AFS to HTM, but most reflected market purchases...
Note Trump's abolition of the requirement for bank 'stress tests' probably didn't help.
Most banks make money by taking deposits (borrowing short) and lending long - this is the interest spread and is effectively a play on duration. When interest rates go up they are protected because most loans are priced as a spread to the Fed interbank rate.
SVB’s clients have been very cashed up because of the tech boom. And they had limited lending opportunities (many companies are unprofitable). So they took the surplus and invested in long dated government bond. The issue is that when interest rates go up the price of bonds falls.
With the funding market being closed for the last year SVB had to sell bonds as companies weee continuing to spend their cash. It was taking a loss - which panicked some of the VCs and triggered a classic run on the bank
2 -
Amusingly, you did exactly that yourself: claiming that the poll showed a 20% drop in SNP VI. (The published tables in reality showed an SNP figure of 47%.) It must have slipped your mind.Leon said:
You did exactly this yesterday. Quoted a poll that was flattering to the SNP. Failed to mention it was a sub sampleStuartDickson said:
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.Leon said:
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?StuartDickson said:
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.state_go_away said:Love the all capitals header!
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
Didn’t this get you banned at one point? Tsk0 -
According to Twitter , "Following yesterday’s suspension of Match Of The Day presenter, Gary Lineker, and the subsequent decision by Lineker’s co-commentators to boycott tonight’s programme in a show of solidarity, the band who play the iconic theme tune at the beginning of each programme have announced that they will be downing their brass instruments until the popular presenter is reinstated."
More seriously, that was Keith Mansfield and Alan Hawkshaw, I think, who were responsible for much more surprisingly hip and still fashionable material such as this, to add to today's surreality, played here in the British library a couple of years back :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYR8zOhSmmo
0 -
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.ydoethur said:So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?1 -
squareroot2 said:
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.Casino_Royale said:
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.Dura_Ace said:
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.JosiasJessop said:
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.Chris said:
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.Leon said:
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Get rid of them and save the money.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
2 -
You should watch BBC Scotland. The future is already here.Foxy said:This is the host the government needs:
0 -
Cancel, cancel, cancel.Taz said:
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.ydoethur said:So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?3 -
Do you remember an occasion (Monaco, I think) when one of the leading cars stopped in the tunnel shortly before the end of the race? Walker exploded with excitement saying it must be some sort of mechanical failure and ran through a few of the more likely issues before James Hunt quietly informed him 'He's run out of petrol, Murray.'Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, nothing can beat "There's nothing wrong with the car except that it's on fire."
Mr. Romford, to be fair, businesses can make bad decisions that seem inexplicable. Ratner, or, more recently, the MCU and Star Wars diluting their brands by subpar films and excessive content at the expense of quality.
Going back a bit, but Star Wars junking the expanded universe when it was bought by Disney was just nuts. A film series based on Zahn's Thrawn trilogy would've been a slam dunk box office success.3 -
Mr. Punter, before my time, I'm afraid.0
-
I wasn't suggesting you ignore it. Nor am I objecting to your questions about the possible conclusions - I share them.StuartDickson said:
“Driving you to distraction “. Classic strawman.Nigelb said:
What do they have to apologise for ?StuartDickson said:
If this “error” (we await R&W response) is explained, will Wulfrun and PB will devote A NEW THREAD to the apology?tlg86 said:Excellent work Wulfrun Phil. I’d be wary of reading too much into this poll. It’s possible the error is in what’s shown before the final output.
Ho ho.
Punters beware.
The anomaly is notable, and is noted.
Other than evidently driving you to distraction, no harm done.
Of course we'll have to see what other polls show before the explanation for the anomaly, and the state of Scottish opinion becomes clear.
If I’d just ignored the header some other insult would have been rolled out. PB eye-swivelling at its best.
But just go back and read through your posts if you think that was a straw man, or that I'm the one swivelling eyes.0 -
I’m not clear what you mean.Roger said:OT. Suella Braverman's offense is apparently exacerbated by her children having Jewish blood.
You couldn't make this woman up!
Can you explain the nature of your concern?0 -
Remarkable how the Nationalists have got the non-aligned of Northern Ireland to back their agenda.
The DUP made some very bad strategic choices on Brexit and throwing their lot in with the English nationalist tendency in the Conservative Party.
EXCLUSIVE:
@LucidTalk
poll for
@BelTel
on how NI would vote in a referendum on the protocol deal:
🔷 67% of people - Yes
🔷 73% of DUP voters - No
🔷 56% UUP voters - Yes
🔷98% of Alliance/Green voters, 97% of nationalists & 38% of unionists - Yes
https://mobile.twitter.com/SuzyJourno/status/16343210272651755520 -
Sorry, Morris, I forgot I was addressing a representative of the younger generation.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, before my time, I'm afraid.
1 -
The thread header implies R&W are guilty of trying to hide a large and obvious error in their data, an accusation that is not supported by the evidence presented.Nigelb said:
What do they have to apologise for ?StuartDickson said:
If this “error” (we await R&W response) is explained, will Wulfrun and PB will devote A NEW THREAD to the apology?tlg86 said:Excellent work Wulfrun Phil. I’d be wary of reading too much into this poll. It’s possible the error is in what’s shown before the final output.
Ho ho.
Punters beware.
The anomaly is notable, and is noted.
Other than evidently driving you to distraction, no harm done.
Of course we'll have to see what other polls show before the explanation for the anomaly, and the state of Scottish opinion becomes clear.
A bit more effort is required on the part of people throwing such insinuations around.
It's a poor show in my view.
Brings to mind this scene in Emma.1 -
Are you contending that SNP voting intention is in fact zero? This is truly groundbreaking work. Please show your working.squareroot2 said:
Get used to it. The SNP are spent. 8 yrs of Nicola Surgeon is enough to drive anyone to vote anything but SNP.StuartDickson said:As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52%
Devolution (the status quo) 38%
Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!0 -
I don't see where the heck you get that from. CR's highlighted an issue (access to rivers) that is not a traditional Tory issue, and then also highlights an issue with it.StuartDickson said:
Spoken like a true Tory Boy. Harry Enfield eat your heart out.Casino_Royale said:
Rivers are actually a problem in England and Wales.ping said:
Isn’t the reality with the shit in the rivers, that in order to not have shit in the rivers, requires replacing billions of miles of sewage pipes at an astronomical cost and decades of disruption?Leon said:
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Linekerping said:Very ex-PBer, Tim, on Twitter;
https://twitter.com/exstrategist/status/1634425658104225792
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
Like, is there the democratic will to double everyone’s water bill for the next twenty years to actually fix the problem?
I suspect not.
We pump and drain far too much shit into them, for a first world country, and far too many of them are "private" and totally inaccessible to people.
I'd say there's also a problem with lack of access for bathing/swimming, which I'd love. But the problem with that is that if you get too many feral chavs and their dogs going there that's just as bad and will introduce all sorts of nasty chemical and bodily pollution back into the rivers, as well as tonnes of litter.
And I know you're hardly a Scottish expert, but Scotland's had issues with their access legislation:
https://news.sky.com/story/overnight-parking-ban-in-east-lothian-coastal-car-parks-to-curb-anti-social-visitors-12789507
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/scotland/407421/loch-lomond-wild-camping-restrictions-slippery-slope-scotlands-walkers/
+more.1 -
I've noticed the pundits have a script when the programme isn't live, which MOTD isn't.
Surely, they can do without ex-footballers? A reasonable manager such as Klopp would be much better. At least, they'd have real insights.
I haven't watched for a while, but I'll tune in tonight.0 -
What does that mean in normal English, please?TheScreamingEagles said:.......
Clarke-Smith has his arse handed to him on Newsnight.
..........
0 -
The Royal Funeral stream with just the events - no commentary - was about 1,000 times better than with some idiot droning on repetitively.Taz said:
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.ydoethur said:So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?
Similarly, many sports events would be enhanced by just letting us watch the action. Virgo is the worst offender as he will not STFU and let us just watch, but he's far from alone.2 -
The English Supreme Court already answered that one. It’s official: the Scots are colonial subjects.pigeon said:
This kind of finding only make you wonder why independence hasn't come one inch closer to happening in the entire period since 2014.StuartDickson said:As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52%
Devolution (the status quo) 38%
Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
Perhaps independence is to a substantial fraction of the Scottish electorate as chastity was to St Augustine...?0 -
(1) The Supreme Court isn't EnglishStuartDickson said:
The English Supreme Court already answered that one. It’s official: the Scots are colonial subjects.pigeon said:
This kind of finding only make you wonder why independence hasn't come one inch closer to happening in the entire period since 2014.StuartDickson said:As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52%
Devolution (the status quo) 38%
Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
Perhaps independence is to a substantial fraction of the Scottish electorate as chastity was to St Augustine...?
(2) They actually ruled the exact opposite - that the Scots are *not* colonial subjects.
I'm starting to wonder if putting you and Suella Braverman in a room together would lead to a moment like the ending of Animal Farm.2 -
Off topic, but on the hijacked topic.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.1 -
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.Mexicanpete said:squareroot2 said:
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.Casino_Royale said:
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.Dura_Ace said:
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.JosiasJessop said:
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.Chris said:
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.Leon said:
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Get rid of them and save the money.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM2 -
Credit where credit is due: Keir Starmer is doing his damnedest to bring that to fruition.pigeon said:
They'll win the next GE in Scotland at a canter. Watch.squareroot2 said:
Get used to it. The SNP are spent. 8 yrs of Nicola Surgeon is enough to drive anyone to vote anything but SNP.StuartDickson said:As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52%
Devolution (the status quo) 38%
Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!0 -
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
1 -
Morning all! A satisfying amount of snow fell last night, adding lovely fluffy stuff onto the frozen crunchy layer. With the same forecast again tonight! Happily no plans to go anywhere this weekend...2
-
That was a joke. But you’d require a sense of humour to notice that it was a joke. So I do see your problemStuartDickson said:
Amusingly, you did exactly that yourself: claiming that the poll showed a 20% drop in SNP VI. (The published tables in reality showed an SNP figure of 47%.) It must have slipped your mind.Leon said:
You did exactly this yesterday. Quoted a poll that was flattering to the SNP. Failed to mention it was a sub sampleStuartDickson said:
I have thoroughly acknowledged the caveats that must be applied to subsamples til I’m blue in the face. There is no point, cos folk like you just keep parroting lies nevertheless.Leon said:
Or you could just quote Scottish sub samples and pretend they are real polls?StuartDickson said:
Few things excite the PB juices more than an SNPBAD story. Astute punters ignore the guff. The only way to use polls is by assiduous long-term observation of polling trends by the same pollster, thus minimising* ‘house’ effects.state_go_away said:Love the all capitals header!
(*they do occasionally change methodology of course, so not always valid)
The big giveaway is the solid PB wall of silence whenever Mike and his minions base entire thread headers on subsamples.
Didn’t this get you banned at one point? Tsk0 -
@steverichards14
No one from army of senior BBC managers available to defend the Lineker decision on the Today programme..They hide away..unable to cope when their meek, naive inepitude becomes the story. They’re the problem for the BBC..not Lineker or some of the other presenters they’ve lost.1 -
Is there something ironic about regulars commenting at length on a PB comment thread about the need for less commentary?
I suspect the desire for the raw empty feed, is for the armchair pundit to fill the silence.2 -
It actually shows that the Guardian article was spot on.Taz said:So the guardian story about the BBC shortening the series of Wilson Isles by one episode for fear of,upsetting the Tories was bollocks !!
As I said at the time.
https://twitter.com/bbcpress/status/1634245237378785280?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
0 -
Was Peter Alliss actually contracted to the Beeb though? I think he was actually contracted to an American broadcaster whose stream the BBC used, although I could easily be wrong.Mexicanpete said:Off topic, but on the hijacked topic.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If we're talking about Famous Commentators My Folks Knew, my grandfather actually knew Peter Alliss quite well. He used to live near (and was a member of) Parkstone Golf Club when Alliss was the pro there.0 -
@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.0 -
Few people will mourn for the SNP, any more than the PQ in Canada.0
-
Lineker gets support from Fatboy Slim
https://twitter.com/fatboyslim/status/1634335584838713349?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
1 -
Plaid contains Leanne Wood and Elin Jones.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
They don't even agree on independence!1 -
That's actually funny.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
Would have been funnier if there was on article on Johnson next to it...0 -
Though the continued popularity of radio for sports events suggests the opposite. There is a big audience for commentary alone, with no watching of the action.ydoethur said:
The Royal Funeral stream with just the events - no commentary - was about 1,000 times better than with some idiot droning on repetitively.Taz said:
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.ydoethur said:So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?
Similarly, many sports events would be enhanced by just letting us watch the action. Virgo is the worst offender as he will not STFU and let us just watch, but he's far from alone.
At its worst punditry on sports programmes (and election nights) is just space filling, but it can be very insightful. Troy Deeney is no angel, but he does very good match analysis and explains tactical decisions insightful.
The pleasure of sport is like many things in life best thought of in three parts:
1) the pleasure of anticipation
2) the actual event
3) the reminiscing and analysing of it afterwards.
Punditry is all about parts 1 and 3.1 -
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/16341757514350387211 -
I doubt it will stop our niece having her daily dip in the sea at LossiemouthRochdalePioneers said:Morning all! A satisfying amount of snow fell last night, adding lovely fluffy stuff onto the frozen crunchy layer. With the same forecast again tonight! Happily no plans to go anywhere this weekend...
2 -
Lineker doesn’t deny he is a tax avoider (which is of course legal; evasion is the illegal stuff). His argument is that he is ONLY a tax avoider and hasn’t crossed any linekjh said:
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?Leon said:
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Linekerping said:Very ex-PBer, Tim, on Twitter;
https://twitter.com/exstrategist/status/1634425658104225792
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
HMRC apparently disagrees
0 -
Come off it, the BBC has a long history of kowtowing to politicians, and royalty, look at why Tony Blackburn was removed from his radio 1 slot for example.Mexicanpete said:Off topic, but on the hijacked topic.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
I suspect with Alliss he just didn’t have the profile to be a concern or to make much of a media storm.0 -
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.JosiasJessop said:
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.Mexicanpete said:squareroot2 said:
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.Casino_Royale said:
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.Dura_Ace said:
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.JosiasJessop said:
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.Chris said:
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.Leon said:
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Get rid of them and save the money.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.1 -
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.Mexicanpete said:Off topic, but on the hijacked topic.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.0 -
Given at one point literally 50% of the Scottish electorate was voting SNP, that is a slightly surprising claim.FF43 said:
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1634175751435038721
And however we cut it, and however extraordinary her comments Forbes did rather get to the nub of the matter with Yousaf - he's a serial incompetent and failure. Difficult to imagine that he will somehow blossom in higher office and his crashing there would not be to the SNP's advantage.0 -
Yousaf is very much continuity Sturgeon and Forbes is a dramatic changeFF43 said:
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/16341757514350387211 -
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.0 -
Troy Deeney has put his past behind him, turned his life around, and is trying to do some good to help disadvantaged communities.Foxy said:
Though the continued popularity of radio for sports events suggests the opposite. There is a big audience for commentary alone, with no watching of the action.ydoethur said:
The Royal Funeral stream with just the events - no commentary - was about 1,000 times better than with some idiot droning on repetitively.Taz said:
No in studio pundits spending time telling people what we just saw.ydoethur said:So Gary Lineker gets the sack and MOTD is to be just a highlights programme with no talking heads wasting time in it.
Hmmm.
Is there any chance we could find something left wing tweeted by John Virgo and Mark Nicholas as well?
The commentators are now refusing to turn up too, and there is talk of players not being willing to give interviews.
The BBC can take the World Feed Commentary apparently.
If the ratings hold up then why would the BBC not do this for the show to save money at a time when they are under pressure for finance ?
Similarly, many sports events would be enhanced by just letting us watch the action. Virgo is the worst offender as he will not STFU and let us just watch, but he's far from alone.
At its worst punditry on sports programmes (and election nights) is just space filling, but it can be very insightful. Troy Deeney is no angel, but he does very good match analysis and explains tactical decisions insightful.
The pleasure of sport is like many things in life best thought of in three parts:
1) the pleasure of anticipation
2) the actual event
3) the reminiscing and analysing of it afterwards.
Punditry is all about parts 1 and 3.
He was no angel in the past. He’s put that behind him. Judge him on the person he is not the person he was.2 -
Perhaps, at the margins.Burgessian said:
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.StuartDickson said:
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.Dura_Ace said:
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.Penddu2 said:Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
Aberdeenshire Central
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Dumfries and Galloway
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
0 -
I would say Yousaf and Forbes are flawed in different ways. Nevertheless that's the choice if we assume Regan won't go anywhere.ydoethur said:
Given at one point literally 50% of the Scottish electorate was voting SNP, that is a slightly surprising claim.FF43 said:
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1634175751435038721
And however we cut it, and however extraordinary her comments Forbes did rather get to the nub of the matter with Yousaf - he's a serial incompetent and failure. Difficult to imagine that he will somehow blossom in higher office and his crashing there would not be to the SNP's advantage.0 -
Tories want to live in a bubble, in which they can feel ok about dehumanising people and don’t have to worry about a government playing fast and loose with the law.Stuartinromford said:
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.1 -
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?Stuartinromford said:
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.2 -
How long before someone suggests they prove once and for all they are not aping Germany in the 30s by burning copies of Lineker's biography in the plaza outside Broadcasting House...Stuartinromford said:
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
EDIT Also echoes the comment by Hugo Rifkind yesterday. This is what happens when you give a 6 year old everything they demand. They may be delighted for a minute, but there will be tears before bedtime0 -
Mexicanpete said:squareroot2 said:
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.Casino_Royale said:
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.Dura_Ace said:
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.JosiasJessop said:
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.Chris said:
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.Leon said:
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Get rid of them and save the money.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
You don’t like football, we get it.JosiasJessop said:
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.Mexicanpete said:squareroot2 said:
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.Casino_Royale said:
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.Dura_Ace said:
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.JosiasJessop said:
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.Chris said:
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.Leon said:
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Get rid of them and save the money.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would
be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
0 -
“Here” geographically in Sweden?StuartDickson said:
You should watch BBC Scotland. The future is already here.Foxy said:This is the host the government needs:
1 -
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.FF43 said:
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1634175751435038721
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.3 -
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of salt? Why should the views of only football fans matter?Mexicanpete said:
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.JosiasJessop said:
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.Mexicanpete said:squareroot2 said:
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.Casino_Royale said:
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.Dura_Ace said:
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.JosiasJessop said:
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.Chris said:
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.Leon said:
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Get rid of them and save the money.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.0 -
Don't even call themselves the D. Ross Say No to Letting the Scots Decide Party. He's missing a trick from his predecessor there.StuartDickson said:
Perhaps, at the margins.Burgessian said:
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.StuartDickson said:
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.Dura_Ace said:
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.Penddu2 said:Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
Aberdeenshire Central
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Dumfries and Galloway
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
Has this been discussed? (Sorry, slept in this morning.)
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23379071.scottish-independence-support-lead-latest-poll/?ref=ebbn0 -
On paper it looks as if they are effectively going to bypass the boycotting presenters, pundits and commentators by taking the "world feed".CD13 said:I've noticed the pundits have a script when the programme isn't live, which MOTD isn't.
Surely, they can do without ex-footballers? A reasonable manager such as Klopp would be much better. At least, they'd have real insights.
I haven't watched for a while, but I'll tune in tonight.
Then you look at who the world feed is. I'm not sure there will be a feed for the BBC to take.0 -
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money0 -
Lots of unionist pant wetters on here.StuartDickson said:
“Could”, “if”, “ taking this R&W poll”, “assuming”, juggling, squinting, fantasising, dreaming, hoping, then telling myself a few porkies… then… yes then, the Yoonyun is saved!! Hallelujah!rcs1000 said:
Labour could "double win" in Scotland: if they are on level pegging with the SNP at the General Election, one would expect them to benefit from anti-SNP tactical voting (as the LibDems in particular also do).CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Labour large majority a good bet if they do well in Scotland
Taking this R&W poll, and assuming it manifests itself as the SNP dropping 10% in 2024 in every constituency, with that 10% lumped onto whoever is in second place.
You know what happens?
SNPageddon.
Of the 57 seats in Scotland, the SNP would win only 9 (!) The Labour Party ends up on 32, with the Conservatives managing 10 and LDs 6.
Now, I suspect it won't be quite so severe. But even a situation where the SNP loses 5 points and the second placed party picks them up, then you still see the Labour Party gaining 15 or so seats.
Unionists really are a bit weird. Instead of working to make the Union less unpopular, they prefer to comfort themselves with entire fantasy worlds that only exist inside their own heads. Long may that continue!0 -
...
On a football show? Because we watch football shows and derive value for money pleasure from our license fee as a result.JosiasJessop said:
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of salt? Why should the views of only football fans matter?Mexicanpete said:
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.JosiasJessop said:
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.Mexicanpete said:squareroot2 said:
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.Casino_Royale said:
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.Dura_Ace said:
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.JosiasJessop said:
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.Chris said:
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.Leon said:
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?Chris said:If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Get rid of them and save the money.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.2 -
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.williamglenn said:
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.Mexicanpete said:Off topic, but on the hijacked topic.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
3 -
TBF to Mr Lineker the tax issue is, as I understand it, the BBC's own fault.Leon said:It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money0 -
Because we know who these senior managers are. We know for a fact that this decision would have had to be at the very least communicated up to the top as it was obviously going to create an utter shit storm.Scott_xP said:@steverichards14
No one from army of senior BBC managers available to defend the Lineker decision on the Today programme..They hide away..unable to cope when their meek, naive inepitude becomes the story. They’re the problem for the BBC..not Lineker or some of the other presenters they’ve lost.
So which BBC managers would have had to come on and defend why they look the politically biased Likeker off the air? The Tory plants who are politically biased!2 -
That's football. The Premier League is full of players on that much for a few months, some of which never get their arse off the bench.Leon said:It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money0 -
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.Foxy said:
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.FF43 said:
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1634175751435038721
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.0 -
Not only have the right made cancel culture their own, they’re now engaging in the politics of envy.Leon said:It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money4 -
Mrs Thatcher said “every prime minister needs a Willie“. We’re all snigger over it, but we all know that what she meant was that they needed a candid friend .Taz said:
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?Stuartinromford said:
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
And there doesn’t seem to be one!1 -
Forbes is the only one with a decent economic brain - it seems to me - who might actually govern Scotland well, and that really is the only route to eventual independence. A continued period of good governance of a prosperous Scotland giving voters the confidence to take the plungeFoxy said:
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.FF43 said:
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1634175751435038721
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The previous method of endless Anglophobic grievance has run its course. Sturgeon took it as far as she could - and failed. That’s why she’s gone1 -
Yes we know that. Its just that as a freelancer who isn't employed by his primary media outlet yourself, its a bit holier than thou attacking a freelancer who isn't employed by his primary media outlet. Especially when said primary media outlet is the one setting the contract terms.Leon said:
Lineker doesn’t deny he is a tax avoider (which is of course legal; evasion is the illegal stuff). His argument is that he is ONLY a tax avoider and hasn’t crossed any linekjh said:
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?Leon said:
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Linekerping said:Very ex-PBer, Tim, on Twitter;
https://twitter.com/exstrategist/status/1634425658104225792
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
HMRC apparently disagrees1 -
But too much Private Walker for my liking.Taz said:
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?Stuartinromford said:
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.2 -
Except where it applies to Tory politicians and their friends. ON which the right instantly decry the politics of envy. For some reason the acronym PPE springs to mind.Jonathan said:
Not only have the right made cancel culture their own, they’re now engaging in the politics of envy.Leon said:It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money0 -
Harsh. Walker was funny.Stuartinromford said:
But too much Private Walker for my liking.Taz said:
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?Stuartinromford said:
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.Scott_xP said:@mrjamesob
The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.1 -
If you've been waiting 20 years for PB to post some of the original musicians playing the Match of the Day and Grandatand theme tunes, your day has come, and here are some of the original musicians playing. Grandstand and Match of the Day actually come from the golden '70s era of this sort of thing, when Britain and Italy produced the best theme music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaHSZ5wPSGw1 -
Sure. But how does that relate to the current issue? The current controversy has nothing to do with his financial affairs.Leon said:It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Also, the BBC is not his only gig. For example, he was on BT’s CL coverage until (I think) last season so his assessment was not simply down to income from the BBC.
In any event, trying to move the discussion away from the attempted censorship of the BBC onto what it pays its presenters just goes to show that you Rightists can’t argue the point. If Lineker wrote a cheque for £4.9m to HMRC tomorrow that issue remains.2 -
Pundits add contrived viewpoints to add extra excitement. One logical question would be why the penalty area is made especially slippery. Ex-professionals will often say "He was touched, he was allowed to go down." What they should be challenged on is meaning ... "He was brushed lightly so he automatically can go over and be 'professional'."
Women's professional football is improving, but often they'd make silly mistakes. The commentators of both sexes would make excuses. A slippery ball, a windy pitch, instead of the mildest of rebukes, such as "He'll be disappointed with that."
The funniest of all is an opposing manager. A dubious tackle? One manager ... An obvious penalty, and a red card too. The other manager ... Nothing to see, it ruined the game.
MOTD is worst, because everything is compressed, and needs a focal point, even an artifical one.
0 -
As said upthread a swing of SNP to SLab could see a lot of seats revert to their pre 2015 norm with SLab dominating. It would make Starmers job a lot easier.FF43 said:
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.Foxy said:
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.FF43 said:
Good morning to yourself!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good morningFF43 said:On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
https://mobile.twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1634175751435038721
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.0 -
Exactly , there are some really thick people on here who should learn not to post their ignorance re Scotland publicly.pigeon said:
They'll win the next GE in Scotland at a canter. Watch.squareroot2 said:
Get used to it. The SNP are spent. 8 yrs of Nicola Surgeon is enough to drive anyone to vote anything but SNP.StuartDickson said:As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52%
Devolution (the status quo) 38%
Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!0 -
Roger we are not in America its "offence"Roger said:OT. Suella Braverman's offense is apparently exacerbated by her children having Jewish blood.
You couldn't make this woman up!
Offence us the attack
You'd soon be whining if presenters were making pro brext statements. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy about this from both sides of the spectrum.Scott_xP said:@steverichards14
No one from army of senior BBC managers available to defend the Lineker decision on the Today programme..They hide away..unable to cope when their meek, naive inepitude becomes the story. They’re the problem for the BBC..not Lineker or some of the other presenters they’ve lost.0 -
As I said upthread the BBC is not his only gig.Carnyx said:
TBF to Mr Lineker the tax issue is, as I understand it, the BBC's own fault.Leon said:It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
2
