The "darkness has taken over London - don't let it spread" Tory advert is exactly the sort of thing I predicted. They're playing the London card nationally.
It's highly intelligent, highly effective stuff, practically impossible for Labour to counter in the minds of those it's aimed at.
Ironic of course that the voiceover is read in a foreign accent, but that's a sharp decision that capitalises on prior conditioning by films (or is it "movies"?) and is just a smartarse point. It works better than having it read in a West Country or Borders accent or by a woman.
They're going full on Gates of Vienna.
They're capitalising on the widespread association of the idea of "London" with the idea of "territory that's been lost to knife-wielding dark-skinned invaders" that is so strong in the minds of most of the British white working class.
Bollocks the spirit has gone out of the Tory party, they're resigned to losing, etc. They're fighting to win.
What can Labour do?
1. Call it out. (Seriously?) 2. Say the same thing. (They haven't got the positioning.) 3. Ignore it and go on about the NHS. (Good luck with that. The NHS is already a big theme in the minds of racists.) 4. Try to appeal to people's intellects. 5. Try to appeal to people's human decency. (This is similar to 1.)
Remember that 52% voted Powellite a mere 8 years ago with a 72% turnout. Have they got they wanted? Or should the question not be asked in those terms because acktchooahly I am talking complete rubbish because the 52% included 0.36128% who voted for Brexit not because of xenophobia but because they cared so much about ecology, or because they thought it was best for race relations, or by mistake, or because their PhDs in economics or history gave them certain perspectives?
Originally I thought the GE would be on 2 May because this would let the Tories play the London card most effectively. Now I reckon it will be soon after, probably in May or June, so that they can build on the idea that Khan's second victory shows even more starkly that London is a different country under invader control.
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
There’s absolutely going to be a ton of culture war bullshit spread, both officially & unofficially, in this election. It’s pretty much all the Conservatives have left &, given the reverse UKIP takeover of the party, it’s also their “safe space” where they feel most comfortable.
I really, really hope it doesn’t work.
It won't. It's indicative of the Tories' (and many of their few remaining supporters') online brain rot.
As we've seen over the past two or so years they are seemingly unaware that culture wars are usually decided in favour of the side who seem less mad. But by endlessly railing about ludicrous things or talking in endless apocalyptic terms makes them seem more crackers than the things are criticising.
We've seen an oddening of the Tory Party where whatever the entirely reasonable objections to Khan (let's be honest he's not been great) or parts of what's been termed 'wokeness' - and some articulate them well - they're very much not made by people who think the nation's capital has turned into Blade Runner, and that's a bigger electoral issue than, say, your local services decaying because the council's finances are tightening.
To give an equivalent on the left, lots of people generally support what might be termed 'socialist' policies like taxing the wealthy significantly more for redistributive purposes and public services. But find the kind of people who turn up at marches shouting about class war deeply offputting, moreso than the politicians they criticise.
We're seeing a similar Corbynisation of the Tory Party whereby it denies itself a hearing on things it might actually want to talk about, by going off on crazed tangents beloved of very online activists and staffers.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
If the Tories make the election about London, the SNP will take the few remaining Tory seats in Scotland.
When the Conservatives are down to just one seat at Westminster, Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk could be the last seat to fall.
Funnily enough I was musing to myself last night that BRS might end up after the election as the 'safest' Tory seat remaining
Mm, an interesting thought.
Quite a few farmers and some fisherfolk though.
True true, but it's the only seat I can think of where the main opposition are in retreat and Labour have no appreciable presence historically or currently.
Not sure there was much of theological significance in that statement per se other than the suggestion not to quote religious scriptures selectively for partisan purposes. However it is usually good advice not to selectively quote any material out of context in support of particular points of view, the same applies to cropping images or clipping sound or videos to such ends.
Theologians would at least know whether it's true and or whether it's being willfully misinterpreted. The Singaporian minister doesn't answer those questions.
A crushing response by the Minister.
I think that on this one knowledge of the religious of Singapore (and how it has changed) is helpful.
It's a real melange of religion, and the more committed value the level of tolerance most:
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
If the Tories make the election about London, the SNP will take the few remaining Tory seats in Scotland.
When the Conservatives are down to just one seat at Westminster, Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk could be the last seat to fall.
Funnily enough I was musing to myself last night that BRS might end up after the election as the 'safest' Tory seat remaining
Mm, an interesting thought.
Quite a few farmers and some fisherfolk though.
True true, but it's the only seat I can think of where the main opposition are in retreat and Labour have no appreciable presence historically or currently.
LDs? Traditionally strong there and the obvious choice for unionists who can't stomach the Tories. But it could then become a 3/4 way split with all up in the air.
The "darkness has taken over London - don't let it spread" Tory advert is exactly the sort of thing I predicted. They're playing the London card nationally.
It's highly intelligent, highly effective stuff, practically impossible for Labour to counter in the minds of those it's aimed at.
Ironic of course that the voiceover is read in a foreign accent, but that's a sharp decision that capitalises on prior conditioning by films (or is it "movies"?) and is just a smartarse point. It works better than having it read in a West Country or Borders accent or by a woman.
They're going full on Gates of Vienna.
They're capitalising on the widespread association of the idea of "London" with the idea of "territory that's been lost to knife-wielding dark-skinned invaders" that is so strong in the minds of most of the British white working class.
Bollocks the spirit has gone out of the Tory party, they're resigned to losing, etc. They're fighting to win.
What can Labour do?
1. Call it out. (Seriously?) 2. Say the same thing. (They haven't got the positioning.) 3. Ignore it and go on about the NHS. (Good luck with that. The NHS is already a big theme in the minds of racists.) 4. Try to appeal to people's intellects. 5. Try to appeal to people's human decency. (This is similar to 1.)
Remember that 52% voted Powellite a mere 8 years ago with a 72% turnout. Have they got they wanted? Or should the question not be asked in those terms because acktchooahly I am talking complete rubbish because the 52% included 0.36128% who voted for Brexit not because of xenophobia but because they cared so much about ecology, or because they thought it was best for race relations, or by mistake, or because their PhDs in economics or history gave them certain perspectives?
Originally I thought the GE would be on 2 May because this would let the Tories play the London card most effectively. Now I reckon it will be soon after, probably in May or June, so that they can build on the idea that Khan's second victory shows even more starkly that London is a different country under invader control.
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
There’s absolutely going to be a ton of culture war bullshit spread, both officially & unofficially, in this election. It’s pretty much all the Conservatives have left &, given the reverse UKIP takeover of the party, it’s also their “safe space” where they feel most comfortable.
I really, really hope it doesn’t work.
I am a Labour activist and I do quite a bit of doorstep work - go to by-elections if I can and also canvass locally on a regular basis and on the doorstep people raise all sorts of things, both local and national issues - Gaza comes up quite a bit amongst moslem voters at the moment. And the number of people who have raised culture wars issues with me? None. These issues have absolutely no cut through and the Tories just look weird when they try to push them.
Not sure there was much of theological significance in that statement per se other than the suggestion not to quote religious scriptures selectively for partisan purposes. However it is usually good advice not to selectively quote any material out of context in support of particular points of view, the same applies to cropping images or clipping sound or videos to such ends.
The Singapore Govt have borrowed a lobotomised AI-bot from the Tory party.
I need to correct this from earlier.
I interpreted the statement as from the Singaporean Govt which was wrong.
Aside from the management and ideological issues, the cash statistics really stand out. This is perhaps a case where extra investment would actually pay for itself ?
...Joshua Titcombe died in 2008. Since then, we have had nearly two decades of dead women, dead children, disabled children, traumatised and physically injured mothers. Thousands of avoidable catastrophes. Each of them a specific horror, but the contours of these stories are the same. Understaffed maternity units with doctors and midwives run ragged. Experienced midwives quitting the profession, because they can’t take it any more. NHS trusts preoccupied with reputation management over patient safety. Whistleblowers forced out. A culture of promoting normal births at all costs.
Nearly two-thirds – 67% – of England’s maternity services are not safe enough, according to CQC figures. The NHS paid out £1.1bn in 2022/23 on maternity-related negligence claims. In 2021, a parliamentary committee urged the government to invest an extra £200m-£350m annually to safely staff England’s maternity units. It invested £186m. The outgoing NHS ombudsman recently warned that NHS leaders sometimes lie and conceal evidence when it comes to maternity care. Meanwhile, women are dying: maternal deaths are up 53% in the period 2020-2022 compared to 2017-19.
From Cumbria to Hampshire, Kent to Shropshire, the issues are universal. Any woman, in any hospital, having any baby, could be at risk.
“The truth is,” says Titcombe, “the majority of England’s maternity services are unsafe. If you got Ockenden in, and scrutinised everything, stuff would come out. There’s this fallacy that we’ve had a few scandals. It’s nonsense. The problems are everywhere.”..
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
If the Tories make the election about London, the SNP will take the few remaining Tory seats in Scotland.
When the Conservatives are down to just one seat at Westminster, Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk could be the last seat to fall.
Funnily enough I was musing to myself last night that BRS might end up after the election as the 'safest' Tory seat remaining
Mm, an interesting thought.
Quite a few farmers and some fisherfolk though.
True true, but it's the only seat I can think of where the main opposition are in retreat and Labour have no appreciable presence historically or currently.
LDs? Traditionally strong there and the obvious choice for unionists who can't stomach the Tories. But it could then become a 3/4 way split with all up in the air.
Long way back for them. Suspect they will be focussed elsewhere. I think BRS will be lightly contested, SNP will be after D and G and the NE, Labour will target Mundellshire. We will see!
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
Likewise here, but eventually you get a letter saying your meter is coming to the end of its certified life and they need to replace. And it turns out certified life is indeed a 'thing'.
I don't really get the opposition. It either works as intended or if the connectivity is poor or you got a first gen one you simply end up with an expensive meter, which is apparently what people wanted to keep anyway.
I do get people being pissed off about the stupidity of the phase one roll out (not easily transferred between suppliers) and therefore the wasted money, but not the personal opposition to getting one.
I was fairly ambivalent, didn't chase getting one, but was fine with it when it happened. Has been handy that the app and meter actually show what we're exporting (solar) too, so I can check the app to decide whether it's a good time to put the washing machine/tumbler on etc - whether the current export (spare electricity) will more than cover the appliance consumption, making that cycle free. There are other options for live measuring export, of course, but the smart meter and app made it easy with no extra work from me.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
Due to some building work, the living room TV aerial connection is out of action.
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
If the Tories make the election about London, the SNP will take the few remaining Tory seats in Scotland.
When the Conservatives are down to just one seat at Westminster, Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk could be the last seat to fall.
Funnily enough I was musing to myself last night that BRS might end up after the election as the 'safest' Tory seat remaining
Mm, an interesting thought.
Quite a few farmers and some fisherfolk though.
True true, but it's the only seat I can think of where the main opposition are in retreat and Labour have no appreciable presence historically or currently.
LDs? Traditionally strong there and the obvious choice for unionists who can't stomach the Tories. But it could then become a 3/4 way split with all up in the air.
Long way back for them. Suspect they will be focussed elsewhere. I think BRS will be lightly contested, SNP will be after D and G and the NE, Labour will target Mundellshire. We will see!
Apparently SLab haven't selected anyone for the Tory held Scottish seats yet. Either they're complacent or badly organised (tho shortage of talent may be an issue).
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
The only thing I watch live is England football games.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
If the Tories make the election about London, the SNP will take the few remaining Tory seats in Scotland.
When the Conservatives are down to just one seat at Westminster, Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk could be the last seat to fall.
Funnily enough I was musing to myself last night that BRS might end up after the election as the 'safest' Tory seat remaining
Mm, an interesting thought.
Quite a few farmers and some fisherfolk though.
True true, but it's the only seat I can think of where the main opposition are in retreat and Labour have no appreciable presence historically or currently.
LDs? Traditionally strong there and the obvious choice for unionists who can't stomach the Tories. But it could then become a 3/4 way split with all up in the air.
Long way back for them. Suspect they will be focussed elsewhere. I think BRS will be lightly contested, SNP will be after D and G and the NE, Labour will target Mundellshire. We will see!
Apparently SLab haven't selected anyone for the Tory held Scottish seats yet. Either they're complacent or badly organised (tho shortage of talent may be an issue).
Dumfriesshire is the only one they should be bothering with, they have no chance in the NE or BRS, D and G maybe could be taken to a 3 way fight. I guess they are after the central belt in the main
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
I had a bad experience with N-Power claiming I had a meter connected directly to their systems and providing all the electricity reading that had been collected automatically as evidence in the high court when they sued me for non payment
Their case collapsed when we provided physical evidence that the meter was not and had ever been connected to their system…
It still angers me that I had to pay my own legal fees and they faced no consequences for perjury
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
Is that a good thing? I'd argue yes (I'm obviuosly biased though) - if we do win a large majority, it'll be good to have it seasoned with people who have actually been in Government before.
I'm interested to see Anna Turley on that list, after her bruising legal case against Len McCluskey and UNITE, and the Skwawkbox blogger who's name I have forgotten.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
I’d like to think so. Obviously it isn’t aimed at Londoners, and suggests the Tories have effectively given up on the capital. People out in the sticks have some funny ideas of what London is like, as I know from moving to the island, and the intention is to scare them that if Labour gets in, where they live will turn into similar. It’s the same tactic the Republicans use effectively in the US, and the American accent of the voiceover suggests that inspiration if not actual involvement.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I'm also entirely internet TV after someone accidentally cut the TV aerial cable years ago, and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
Likewise here, but eventually you get a letter saying your meter is coming to the end of its certified life and they need to replace. And it turns out certified life is indeed a 'thing'.
The system can be quite confusing. We had smart meters installed several years ago, then when we changed supplier the new supplier said they couldn't get readings from the gas one. They said it was a "first generation" meter and would need replacing with a new one, they gave the impression that there is a planned replacement programme for these meters. However a few weeks later it reactivated itself and seems to work fine. All a bit mysterious.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
The big problem for the BBC is not the switch to streaming, most Freeview channels will be on a new streaming platform called Freely very soon, but that the BBC's share of streaming is dismal. Kids and young people barely watch any BBC output at all, their viewing is dominated by YouTube*, Netflix, and TikTok. BBC viewing figures are flattered by the older viewer, but the outlook is horrendous and the BBC will have to change radically.
* YouTube is the top streaming service in the US now, it would be a huge media business all on its own if split out from Alphabet.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I'm also entirely internet TV after someone accidentally cut the TV aerial cable years ago, and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.
Still use cash. A bit.
Use cash as much as possible. Have satellite dish but only watch music channels or YouTube etc, also have non functioning aerial. Personally couldn't give a rats ass what happens to the Beeb but understand some do
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I rarely use cash but I watch a lot of broadcast TV.
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
Likewise here, but eventually you get a letter saying your meter is coming to the end of its certified life and they need to replace. And it turns out certified life is indeed a 'thing'.
We installed a smart meter back in January. Our energy provider has been unable to bill us for electricity ever since.
Which is weird, because a) they can bill us for gas & the gas meter communicates with the system via the electricity meter and b) they’re receiving all our electrical usage because we can track our half-hourly usage on their website!
Presumably there’s some back-end plumbing that’s missing, but given these news reports it sounds like the whole thing is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions that was farmed out to the lowest bidder whilst simultaneously being run by an Ofgem committee that meets once every six months, if they can be bothered.
It was never clear why the government was so keen on smart meters whose main benefit was to make meter-readers redundant.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I'm also entirely internet TV after someone accidentally cut the TV aerial cable years ago, and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.
Still use cash. A bit.
Use cash as much as possible. Have satellite dish but only watch music channels or YouTube etc, also have non functioning aerial. Personally couldn't give a rats ass what happens to the Beeb but understand some do
Almost never watch live TV, and when I do it's via internet. Use cash occasionally.
As to the BBC, in the great scheme of things its TV stuff (except news, Parliament etc at critical moments) is not of great importance, but the significance of BBC radio both UK and worldwide is, in the long run, immense.
There are some indications that live radio (whether steam powered, DAB or internet) is coming back into fashion.
One other possibility for 'safest Tory seat after the GE' that I was musing on before is Waveney Valley. Notionals of 62 Tory 18 Lab 9 Green 9 LD, and the Greens are strong locally and targeting it. New seat so tactical voting is blurred with all 3 in play, could easily end up 45 15 15 15 or some such if no local 'understanding' is reached
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
What they say about ULEZ will strike all Londoners as batshit, and many outside London won't have heard of ULEZ, that's true. But the ULEZ reference helps paint London as a terrifying foreign-occupied place, and was surely chosen for that reason. The letter Z in particular works quite well and "ULEZ" sounds like a foreign word. The experience the ad connects with is the feeling of fear and disgust that many white racists experience when they see black people or Muslims acting as if they have the same right to live in Britain as anybody else, working in the NHS, working in supermarkets, perhaps if they are Muslims saying "Salaam" to each other, etc. Hardly any rationality is involved. The ad plays on fear of the unknown, fear of the mounting forces of darkness.
Jeremy Corbyn could have fought this. I doubt Keir Starmer will even find it in himself to call such ads racist.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I'm also entirely internet TV after someone accidentally cut the TV aerial cable years ago, and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.
Still use cash. A bit.
Use cash as much as possible. Have satellite dish but only watch music channels or YouTube etc, also have non functioning aerial. Personally couldn't give a rats ass what happens to the Beeb but understand some do
Almost never watch live TV, and when I do it's via internet. Use cash occasionally.
As to the BBC, in the great scheme of things its TV stuff (except news, Parliament etc at critical moments) is not of great importance, but the significance of BBC radio both UK and worldwide is, in the long run, immense.
There are some indications that live radio (whether steam powered, DAB or internet) is coming back into fashion.
Interesting as music TV is dying on its feet due to apps etc
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
Likewise here, but eventually you get a letter saying your meter is coming to the end of its certified life and they need to replace. And it turns out certified life is indeed a 'thing'.
We installed a smart meter back in January. Our energy provider has been unable to bill us for electricity ever since.
Which is weird, because a) they can bill us for gas & the gas meter communicates with the system via the electricity meter and b) they’re receiving all our electrical usage because we can track our half-hourly usage on their website!
Presumably there’s some back-end plumbing that’s missing, but given these news reports it sounds like the whole thing is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions that was farmed out to the lowest bidder whilst simultaneously being run by an Ofgem committee that meets once every six months, if they can be bothered.
It was never clear why the government was so keen on smart meters whose main benefit was to make meter-readers redundant.
The main benefit is that the suppliers get real-time information on usage, which allows them to more efficiently control supply.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I'm also entirely internet TV after someone accidentally cut the TV aerial cable years ago, and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.
Still use cash. A bit.
Use cash as much as possible. Have satellite dish but only watch music channels or YouTube etc, also have non functioning aerial. Personally couldn't give a rats ass what happens to the Beeb but understand some do
Almost never watch live TV, and when I do it's via internet. Use cash occasionally.
As to the BBC, in the great scheme of things its TV stuff (except news, Parliament etc at critical moments) is not of great importance, but the significance of BBC radio both UK and worldwide is, in the long run, immense.
There are some indications that live radio (whether steam powered, DAB or internet) is coming back into fashion.
Yes, firstly you can do something else when the radio is on- podcasts also work with this. However with radio the selection is both more random and much better quality than either podcasts or the equivalent on TV. Things like "In our Time" may be a bit obscure, but you come away having learned something- not true of the latest Nazis documentary that passes for history on the telly or a rather ranty podcast.
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
Likewise here, but eventually you get a letter saying your meter is coming to the end of its certified life and they need to replace. And it turns out certified life is indeed a 'thing'.
All of which means that having a smart meter is not an option but eventually becomes a requirement. My father in law has had the letter, sent by email to me repetitively week after week by Octopus, telling me that they had to replace the existing meter by signing up to a smart meter. No other option. It turns out that your only option is to either install a smart meter, or switch supplier to one which is willing to replace the existing type of meter. The "switch supplier" option is their get out to enable them to pretend that installing a smart meter is not compulsory. But good luck with finding such a supplier.
Anyway, we're still getting the emails and nothing has so far happened.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I'm also entirely internet TV after someone accidentally cut the TV aerial cable years ago, and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.
Still use cash. A bit.
Use cash as much as possible. Have satellite dish but only watch music channels or YouTube etc, also have non functioning aerial. Personally couldn't give a rats ass what happens to the Beeb but understand some do
Almost never watch live TV, and when I do it's via internet. Use cash occasionally.
As to the BBC, in the great scheme of things its TV stuff (except news, Parliament etc at critical moments) is not of great importance, but the significance of BBC radio both UK and worldwide is, in the long run, immense.
There are some indications that live radio (whether steam powered, DAB or internet) is coming back into fashion.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Will it now? What are you going to do about the terrible lag on (not) live sports that ruins the experience because someone always tells you that there's been a goal two minutes before you see the goal?
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
Likewise here, but eventually you get a letter saying your meter is coming to the end of its certified life and they need to replace. And it turns out certified life is indeed a 'thing'.
We installed a smart meter back in January. Our energy provider has been unable to bill us for electricity ever since.
Which is weird, because a) they can bill us for gas & the gas meter communicates with the system via the electricity meter and b) they’re receiving all our electrical usage because we can track our half-hourly usage on their website!
Presumably there’s some back-end plumbing that’s missing, but given these news reports it sounds like the whole thing is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions that was farmed out to the lowest bidder whilst simultaneously being run by an Ofgem committee that meets once every six months, if they can be bothered.
It was never clear why the government was so keen on smart meters whose main benefit was to make meter-readers redundant.
I guess it is because they make it easy to charge different rates for consumption at different times of the day - I believe there may already be electricity tariffs that do this? If demand on the grid can be spread more evenly across the day there would be huge savings on infrastructure costs.
The "darkness has taken over London - don't let it spread" Tory advert is exactly the sort of thing I predicted. They're playing the London card nationally.
It's highly intelligent, highly effective stuff, practically impossible for Labour to counter in the minds of those it's aimed at.
Ironic of course that the voiceover is read in a foreign accent, but that's a sharp decision that capitalises on prior conditioning by films (or is it "movies"?) and is just a smartarse point. It works better than having it read in a West Country or Borders accent or by a woman.
They're going full on Gates of Vienna.
They're capitalising on the widespread association of the idea of "London" with the idea of "territory that's been lost to knife-wielding dark-skinned invaders" that is so strong in the minds of most of the British white working class.
Bollocks the spirit has gone out of the Tory party, they're resigned to losing, etc. They're fighting to win.
What can Labour do?
1. Call it out. (Seriously?) 2. Say the same thing. (They haven't got the positioning.) 3. Ignore it and go on about the NHS. (Good luck with that. The NHS is already a big theme in the minds of racists.) 4. Try to appeal to people's intellects. 5. Try to appeal to people's human decency. (This is similar to 1.)
Remember that 52% voted Powellite a mere 8 years ago with a 72% turnout. Have they got they wanted? Or should the question not be asked in those terms because acktchooahly I am talking complete rubbish because the 52% included 0.36128% who voted for Brexit not because of xenophobia but because they cared so much about ecology, or because they thought it was best for race relations, or by mistake, or because their PhDs in economics or history gave them certain perspectives?
Originally I thought the GE would be on 2 May because this would let the Tories play the London card most effectively. Now I reckon it will be soon after, probably in May or June, so that they can build on the idea that Khan's second victory shows even more starkly that London is a different country under invader control.
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
There’s absolutely going to be a ton of culture war bullshit spread, both officially & unofficially, in this election. It’s pretty much all the Conservatives have left &, given the reverse UKIP takeover of the party, it’s also their “safe space” where they feel most comfortable.
I really, really hope it doesn’t work.
I am a Labour activist and I do quite a bit of doorstep work - go to by-elections if I can and also canvass locally on a regular basis and on the doorstep people raise all sorts of things, both local and national issues - Gaza comes up quite a bit amongst moslem voters at the moment. And the number of people who have raised culture wars issues with me? None. These issues have absolutely no cut through and the Tories just look weird when they try to push them.
On a recent visit to a Lib Dem target seat, I found people actively saying that the Tories anti-woke was divisive and stupid itself, so certainly no cut through there.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Will it now? What are you going to do about the terrible lag on (not) live sports that ruins the experience because someone always tells you that there's been a goal two minutes before you see the goal?
The lag is somewhere between deliberate and incompetent implantation.
I wonder if the courts will show him the same leniency New York did for the Orange One?
Your regular reminder that if he had been extradited to Sweden to be questioned over the rape allegations, even if he had been convicted, he would have been out of prison by now.
Instead, he's not only spent ten years locked up anyway but now seems set to spend life behind bars in the US.
It's disgraceful. I'm ashamed that Britain has been part of it.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
What they say about ULEZ will strike all Londoners as batshit, and many outside London won't have heard of ULEZ, that's true. But the ULEZ reference helps paint London as a terrifying foreign-occupied place, and was surely chosen for that reason. The letter Z in particular works quite well and "ULEZ" sounds like a foreign word. The experience the ad connects with is the feeling of fear and disgust that many white racists experience when they see black people or Muslims acting as if they have the same right to live in Britain as anybody else, working in the NHS, working in supermarkets, perhaps if they are Muslims saying "Salaam" to each other, etc. Hardly any rationality is involved. The ad plays on fear of the unknown, fear of the mounting forces of darkness.
Jeremy Corbyn could have fought this. I doubt Keir Starmer will even find it in himself to call such ads racist.
How Labour responds to ads like these (there will be more) presents them a few options:
1. Ignore. Let social media do its thing. Danger then is that they are letting Tory lies go unpunished 2. Call it out as racist or dog whistling. Risk of seeming to be obsessed with finding racism everywhere 3. Dismiss as pathetic last gasp efforts of a failed government that can’t manage public services or the economy. Probably the best and most likely approach, though it won’t be enough to counter the bankrupt council ads 4. Fact check it, point out hypocrisy and encourage the community notes brigade. Probably not worth it with the London dog whistle ads but necessary on the bust councils front
The "darkness has taken over London - don't let it spread" Tory advert is exactly the sort of thing I predicted. They're playing the London card nationally.
It's highly intelligent, highly effective stuff, practically impossible for Labour to counter in the minds of those it's aimed at.
Ironic of course that the voiceover is read in a foreign accent, but that's a sharp decision that capitalises on prior conditioning by films (or is it "movies"?) and is just a smartarse point. It works better than having it read in a West Country or Borders accent or by a woman.
They're going full on Gates of Vienna.
They're capitalising on the widespread association of the idea of "London" with the idea of "territory that's been lost to knife-wielding dark-skinned invaders" that is so strong in the minds of most of the British white working class.
Bollocks the spirit has gone out of the Tory party, they're resigned to losing, etc. They're fighting to win.
What can Labour do?
1. Call it out. (Seriously?) 2. Say the same thing. (They haven't got the positioning.) 3. Ignore it and go on about the NHS. (Good luck with that. The NHS is already a big theme in the minds of racists.) 4. Try to appeal to people's intellects. 5. Try to appeal to people's human decency. (This is similar to 1.)
Remember that 52% voted Powellite a mere 8 years ago with a 72% turnout. Have they got they wanted? Or should the question not be asked in those terms because acktchooahly I am talking complete rubbish because the 52% included 0.36128% who voted for Brexit not because of xenophobia but because they cared so much about ecology, or because they thought it was best for race relations, or by mistake, or because their PhDs in economics or history gave them certain perspectives?
Originally I thought the GE would be on 2 May because this would let the Tories play the London card most effectively. Now I reckon it will be soon after, probably in May or June, so that they can build on the idea that Khan's second victory shows even more starkly that London is a different country under invader control.
The general election will be all about London. The NHS will hardly get a look-in.
There’s absolutely going to be a ton of culture war bullshit spread, both officially & unofficially, in this election. It’s pretty much all the Conservatives have left &, given the reverse UKIP takeover of the party, it’s also their “safe space” where they feel most comfortable.
I really, really hope it doesn’t work.
I am a Labour activist and I do quite a bit of doorstep work - go to by-elections if I can and also canvass locally on a regular basis and on the doorstep people raise all sorts of things, both local and national issues - Gaza comes up quite a bit amongst moslem voters at the moment. And the number of people who have raised culture wars issues with me? None. These issues have absolutely no cut through and the Tories just look weird when they try to push them.
On a recent visit to a Lib Dem target seat, I found people actively saying that the Tories anti-woke was divisive and stupid itself, so certainly no cut through there.
An enthusiastic Daily Mail reading friend of my wife recently observed to me that she was baffled by all this talk of woke and she did not understand the meaning of the term.
Not sure there was much of theological significance in that statement per se other than the suggestion not to quote religious scriptures selectively for partisan purposes. However it is usually good advice not to selectively quote any material out of context in support of particular points of view, the same applies to cropping images or clipping sound or videos to such ends.
The Singapore Govt have borrowed a lobotomised AI-bot from the Tory party.
Let's hope they give him back in time to present his next budget.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
On broadcast versus streamed television, the good people at The Rest is Entertainment have noted a convergence as broadcasters have their own streaming platforms, while pure streamers are starting to move towards scheduled releases.
The Rest is Entertainment comes from the same podcast group as (among others) The Rest is Politics (Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell), and The Rest is History, all parts of the Goalhanger family, which is the production company founded by Gary Lineker. https://www.goalhangerpodcasts.com/
Gary Lineker and his Goalhanger teammates on their podcast empire The rapidly growing company emulates its amiable founder by encouraging hosts and guests ‘to disagree agreeably’ https://www.ft.com/content/5a3c53cb-cad8-4184-9724-21ba236d5f00 (not paywalled)
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Will it now? What are you going to do about the terrible lag on (not) live sports that ruins the experience because someone always tells you that there's been a goal two minutes before you see the goal?
The lag is somewhere between deliberate and incompetent implantation.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Will it now? What are you going to do about the terrible lag on (not) live sports that ruins the experience because someone always tells you that there's been a goal two minutes before you see the goal?
The lag is somewhere between deliberate and incompetent implantation.
Unless someone fixes it, streaming will continue to suck arse for sports.
The worst is when you have a load of people round for a big match and you want it on in a few rooms and they are all at different lags and so you hear a cheer from the people hanging out in the kitchen ruining the surprise for everyone in a different room.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
Who's texting you within a minute or so of a goal being scored?! Presumably only a close friend who supports the same team and is at the game. Ask them not to. Or put your phone away for 90 minutes. Honestly, score spoilers are a trivial matter to avoid given the lag isn't that long.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
What they say about ULEZ will strike all Londoners as batshit, and many outside London won't have heard of ULEZ, that's true. But the ULEZ reference helps paint London as a terrifying foreign-occupied place, and was surely chosen for that reason. The letter Z in particular works quite well and "ULEZ" sounds like a foreign word. The experience the ad connects with is the feeling of fear and disgust that many white racists experience when they see black people or Muslims acting as if they have the same right to live in Britain as anybody else, working in the NHS, working in supermarkets, perhaps if they are Muslims saying "Salaam" to each other, etc. Hardly any rationality is involved. The ad plays on fear of the unknown, fear of the mounting forces of darkness.
Jeremy Corbyn could have fought this. I doubt Keir Starmer will even find it in himself to call such ads racist.
Long posts about what racists think are often unintentionally revealing about those who write them.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
There is a sort of doublethink people from outside the capital are able to indulge in, so I don’t think this tactic is wholly useless.
London is both a. The unfairly favoured home of the wealthy and elite that gets all the investment while the rest of the country crumbles, and b. A shithole that they wouldn’t be seen dead in that makes them glad they live nowhere near.
Not uniquely a British mentality. You get the same doublethink in the US about NYC, in France about Paris, in Ireland about Dublin and probably in every country with a big metropolis.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
There is a sort of doublethink people from outside the capital are able to indulge in, so I don’t think this tactic is wholly useless.
London is both a. The unfairly favoured home of the wealthy and elite that gets all the investment while the rest of the country crumbles, and b. A shithole that they wouldn’t be seen dead in that makes them glad they live nowhere near.
Not uniquely a British mentality. You get the same doublethink in the US about NYC, in France about Paris, in Ireland about Dublin and probably in every country with a big metropolis.
Both things can be entirely true; they are not inherently contradictory.
It was Conservatives Twitter that shared it, but the adv itself had zero branding on it, no Vote Conservative, no PEB, no signage of any kind and it just sort of stops dead at the end.
Will they deny commissioning it, go "oh, it's a third party thing that one of our juniors just shared". (And, if that is an untruth, perhaps get found out).
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
I wonder if someone could invent a method whereby it was possible for a human to spend a couple of hours watching sport without constant access to their mobile phone. Definitely in the rocket science category, but could be a goldmine.....
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
Who's texting you within a minute or so of a goal being scored?! Presumably only a close friend who supports the same team and is at the game. Ask them not to. Or put your phone away for 90 minutes. Honestly, score spoilers are a trivial matter to avoid given the lag isn't that long.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
Who's texting you within a minute or so of a goal being scored?! Presumably only a close friend who supports the same team and is at the game. Ask them not to. Or put your phone away for 90 minutes. Honestly, score spoilers are a trivial matter to avoid given the lag isn't that long.
Try betting on the basis of a 2-minute delay!
Unless you are paying hundreds or thousands a month to get the fastest pictures/feeds, someone will have an edge on you in play whether the delay is 10 seconds on Sky satellite or 40-120 seconds on an app/website.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
Who's texting you within a minute or so of a goal being scored?! Presumably only a close friend who supports the same team and is at the game. Ask them not to. Or put your phone away for 90 minutes. Honestly, score spoilers are a trivial matter to avoid given the lag isn't that long.
Try betting on the basis of a 2-minute delay!
Unless you are paying hundreds or thousands a month to get the fastest pictures/feeds, someone will have an edge on you in play whether the delay is 10 seconds on Sky satellite or 40-120 seconds on an app/website.
True but back in the real world it is possible to bet in-play, even on horseracing, with internet-streamed or satellite video, because good judgement can compensate for small delays, but not for delays measured in minutes.
ETA it is less easy than used to be the case now some people fly their own drones for a faster feed!
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
The big problem for the BBC is not the switch to streaming, most Freeview channels will be on a new streaming platform called Freely very soon, but that the BBC's share of streaming is dismal. Kids and young people barely watch any BBC output at all, their viewing is dominated by YouTube*, Netflix, and TikTok. BBC viewing figures are flattered by the older viewer, but the outlook is horrendous and the BBC will have to change radically.
* YouTube is the top streaming service in the US now, it would be a huge media business all on its own if split out from Alphabet.
We're not exactly kids, but we hardly watch any (new) BBC programmes at all. Loads of old BBC content on other channels, mind.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Will it now? What are you going to do about the terrible lag on (not) live sports that ruins the experience because someone always tells you that there's been a goal two minutes before you see the goal?
The lag is somewhere between deliberate and incompetent implantation.
Unless someone fixes it, streaming will continue to suck arse for sports.
The worst is when you have a load of people round for a big match and you want it on in a few rooms and they are all at different lags and so you hear a cheer from the people hanging out in the kitchen ruining the surprise for everyone in a different room.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
There is a sort of doublethink people from outside the capital are able to indulge in, so I don’t think this tactic is wholly useless.
London is both a. The unfairly favoured home of the wealthy and elite that gets all the investment while the rest of the country crumbles, and b. A shithole that they wouldn’t be seen dead in that makes them glad they live nowhere near.
Not uniquely a British mentality. You get the same doublethink in the US about NYC, in France about Paris, in Ireland about Dublin and probably in every country with a big metropolis.
Both things can be entirely true; they are not inherently contradictory.
They are a little bit contradictory. Unless people think knife crime is high because London gets too much money spent on policing.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Why ? I didn't watch most of them and couldn't care less about them. If the BBC really is the national treasure its advocates maintain then people will flock to them to subscribe.
We've resisted the constant pleadings of our energy supplier to get a smart meter. So far, at least...
Likewise here, but eventually you get a letter saying your meter is coming to the end of its certified life and they need to replace. And it turns out certified life is indeed a 'thing'.
We installed a smart meter back in January. Our energy provider has been unable to bill us for electricity ever since.
Which is weird, because a) they can bill us for gas & the gas meter communicates with the system via the electricity meter and b) they’re receiving all our electrical usage because we can track our half-hourly usage on their website!
Presumably there’s some back-end plumbing that’s missing, but given these news reports it sounds like the whole thing is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions that was farmed out to the lowest bidder whilst simultaneously being run by an Ofgem committee that meets once every six months, if they can be bothered.
It was never clear why the government was so keen on smart meters whose main benefit was to make meter-readers redundant.
I guess it is because they make it easy to charge different rates for consumption at different times of the day - I believe there may already be electricity tariffs that do this? If demand on the grid can be spread more evenly across the day there would be huge savings on infrastructure costs.
How else are you going to meter domestic EV charging at off peak rates ?
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
Who's texting you within a minute or so of a goal being scored?! Presumably only a close friend who supports the same team and is at the game. Ask them not to. Or put your phone away for 90 minutes. Honestly, score spoilers are a trivial matter to avoid given the lag isn't that long.
Nope. Try watching a streamed game in a pub or, as we attempt, at our rugby club as a fundraiser. It’s inevitably ruined by someone revealing a goal before the goal is seen. The problem lies not with the users but with the flawed bullshit technology which is laggy AF.
I appreciate that this may just be me seeing what I want to see but I have become aware of signs that men in particular are getting fed up with 'woke' ; I went out for a few beers last night and on the fourth pint, my friend was agreeing on subjects like that cancelling people had gone too far, that the kids will get fed up with the totalitarian indoctrination in schools on issues like 'gender' and 'hate speech' and rebel against it; that the woke right (ie Trump 2024) are an inevitable and predictable response to the extremes of the 'woke left', etc etc. It is only a personal anecdote but for many years this group of friends were very accepting of the zeitgeist but now I am detecting that they are changing and seeing the world differently. I've also seen this with older friends as well who start to look at the left and right and comment 'they are both as bad as each other'. Something also increasingly evident with commentators on here.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
No, they don't. They really are blinkered to it. This trend will only accelerate.
Youtube and my hard drive of all my DVD's ripped are what I watch the most now.
I watch very little live TV and the odd thing on catch up.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
What they say about ULEZ will strike all Londoners as batshit, and many outside London won't have heard of ULEZ, that's true. But the ULEZ reference helps paint London as a terrifying foreign-occupied place, and was surely chosen for that reason. The letter Z in particular works quite well and "ULEZ" sounds like a foreign word. The experience the ad connects with is the feeling of fear and disgust that many white racists experience when they see black people or Muslims acting as if they have the same right to live in Britain as anybody else, working in the NHS, working in supermarkets, perhaps if they are Muslims saying "Salaam" to each other, etc. Hardly any rationality is involved. The ad plays on fear of the unknown, fear of the mounting forces of darkness.
Jeremy Corbyn could have fought this. I doubt Keir Starmer will even find it in himself to call such ads racist.
Long posts about what racists think are often unintentionally revealing about those who write them.
“18th Cent landscapes can turn you into a Nazi” - indicates that some people at the Fitzwilliam Museum are potential violent extremists and need to be Prevent’d right away.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
I wonder if someone could invent a method whereby it was possible for a human to spend a couple of hours watching sport without constant access to their mobile phone. Definitely in the rocket science category, but could be a goldmine.....
Nope. Are you going to insist every visitor to my rugby club hands in their phone when we are screening a match on the big screen as a fundraiser? It’s flawed technology, pure and simple. Don’t blame users!
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
There is a sort of doublethink people from outside the capital are able to indulge in, so I don’t think this tactic is wholly useless.
London is both a. The unfairly favoured home of the wealthy and elite that gets all the investment while the rest of the country crumbles, and b. A shithole that they wouldn’t be seen dead in that makes them glad they live nowhere near.
Not uniquely a British mentality. You get the same doublethink in the US about NYC, in France about Paris, in Ireland about Dublin and probably in every country with a big metropolis.
Bloody London. I've only ever been mugged and not appreciated there.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
You don't have to look at it. Your problem isn't that streaming sucks but that you are addicted to always being digitally engaged.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
Who's texting you within a minute or so of a goal being scored?! Presumably only a close friend who supports the same team and is at the game. Ask them not to. Or put your phone away for 90 minutes. Honestly, score spoilers are a trivial matter to avoid given the lag isn't that long.
Try betting on the basis of a 2-minute delay!
Unless you are paying hundreds or thousands a month to get the fastest pictures/feeds, someone will have an edge on you in play whether the delay is 10 seconds on Sky satellite or 40-120 seconds on an app/website.
True but back in the real world it is possible to bet in-play, even on horseracing, with internet-streamed or satellite video, because good judgement can compensate for small delays, but not for delays measured in minutes.
ETA it is less easy than used to be the case now some people fly their own drones for a faster feed!
Indeed. Forget betting in play with streaming. You might as well just hand over your cash to the bookies and go home.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
The big problem for the BBC is not the switch to streaming, most Freeview channels will be on a new streaming platform called Freely very soon, but that the BBC's share of streaming is dismal. Kids and young people barely watch any BBC output at all, their viewing is dominated by YouTube*, Netflix, and TikTok. BBC viewing figures are flattered by the older viewer, but the outlook is horrendous and the BBC will have to change radically.
* YouTube is the top streaming service in the US now, it would be a huge media business all on its own if split out from Alphabet.
BBC viewing figures are flattered by the older viewer but this is a demographic, as we saw recently with Radio 2, they have nothing but contempt for.
Their attempt to engage with the youth is feeble. Bringing Youth channel BBC3 back onto terrestrial has been a flop. The ratings have been poor in spite of them seeming to plug every main show that appears on it on BBC1 and 2.
Problem with the BBC is they do not wish to recognise it so instead of considering what the future BBC looks like they cling to what it was. Doesn't help the great sense of entitlement by those at the BBC who think they deserve a job for life. Just look at the reactions to the changes to local radio. The BBC should be visionary to see where the market is going and go for it. But they showed, even as recently with BBC Store, they just don't have a clue.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
I wonder if someone could invent a method whereby it was possible for a human to spend a couple of hours watching sport without constant access to their mobile phone. Definitely in the rocket science category, but could be a goldmine.....
Well. I take my phone with me to St Mirren home games but I only use it at half-time, or say a break for an injury, to check how the other matches are going.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Do people not get this? For many of us, broadcast TV *has already ended*
We stayed at my daughter's flat in Edinburgh recently. We were surprised to discover that her TV did not actually have any channels. They used it entirely for streaming, Netflix and the like. My son is the same. I don't think he ever watches something on conventional TV. We are surely reaching the end of conventional TV schedules for everything except live events.
We haven't had any "conventional" channels for about 7-8 years. We do everything through the assorted apps on the TV. I think the only thing we've watched remotely "live" (via iPlayer) in that time are Doctor Who and election coverage.
I don't have access to an aerial so everything I watch on TV is off the internet using various apps including iPlayer.
Can we have a Venn diagram of:
People who never use cash People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
I watch broadcast TV all the time, because live sports are useless online due to the lag, which can be up to 120 seconds. You get a WhatsApp from some goon watching live or on LiveScores app and it ruins the entire experience. Are those who are pushing this model doing anything about this fatal flaw?
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
You can mute notifications on WhatsApp and not have live scores open. Bob and Terry were trailblazers for not finding out the score!
Rubbish, anyone can send you a text at any time, or call, or anything. The problem is not the notifications it's that streaming sucks arse for sports because it's so bloody laggy.
You don't have to look at it. Your problem isn't that streaming sucks but that you are addicted to always being digitally engaged.
Nope. We stream games at our local rugby club as fundraisers. We are now looking into getting cable to replace the internet TV streams (at considerable expense to the club) because the amount of games ruined by someone relaying goal/try news before the audience sees it is approaching 100%.
As an aside, I should add that discussing the game in real-time with mates is part and parcel of the experience. Not possible when some guys have streaming and others cable.
I appreciate that this may just be me seeing what I want to see but I have become aware of signs that men in particular are getting fed up with 'woke' ; I went out for a few beers last night and on the fourth pint, my friend was agreeing on subjects like that cancelling people had gone too far, that the kids will get fed up with the totalitarian indoctrination in schools on issues like 'gender' and 'hate speech' and rebel against it; that the woke right (ie Trump 2024) are an inevitable and predictable response to the extremes of the 'woke left', etc etc. It is only a personal anecdote but for many years this group of friends were very accepting of the zeitgeist but now I am detecting that they are changing and seeing the world differently. I've also seen this with older friends as well who start to look at the left and right and comment 'they are both as bad as each other'. Something also increasingly evident with commentators on here.
Doing the polar opposite of a problem doesn’t represent a solution but a further species of problem. In the same way setting up a broadcaster to preach, patronise and condescend to a different demographic doesn’t solve any problems real or imagined with broadcasting.
In terms of the current iteration of the culture wars, the woke/anti-woke movements it’s basically two sides who think the world can be perfected if everyone falls in step with their ideology. They are both based on the same wrong premise; the world cannot be perfected there are just an infinite series of trade offs.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
Yes, if you spend a lot of time arguing politics on the internet you can end up overestimating how salient these 'culture war' issues are. I've succumbed to that misconception myself from time to time.
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
Morning all. My word what a spectacular Tory Ad thing for London. And by spectacular I mean weird, dim-witted and sinister in equal measure. Morons. They're somebody that I used to know.
You need to put aside your assessment of it as weird and sinister and THEN consider whether it's dimwitted.
It's certainly sinister. Not sure what you mean by "weird". It's the kind of thing I expected. I don't think it's dimwitted at all. It's on the ball and it's kickarse.
I think it's fairly dimwitted, because it doesn't reflect anyone's experience. Is there even one Londoner who doesn't go out because they're afraid of being attacked by hooded ULEZ enforcers? And if you live nowhere near London and aren't very political, do you even know what ULEZ is?
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
It's also just daft as most people are aware that the Mayor of London's powers are somewhat limited compared to the national government. You can think Sadiq Khan is rubbish, plenty of people do. But if you're saying (ludicrously) part of the country is falling apart - in fact the part that's often touted as the wealthiest home of 'elites' - then to think some of that isn't rebounding on you is pretty daft.
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
There is a sort of doublethink people from outside the capital are able to indulge in, so I don’t think this tactic is wholly useless.
London is both a. The unfairly favoured home of the wealthy and elite that gets all the investment while the rest of the country crumbles, and b. A shithole that they wouldn’t be seen dead in that makes them glad they live nowhere near.
Not uniquely a British mentality. You get the same doublethink in the US about NYC, in France about Paris, in Ireland about Dublin and probably in every country with a big metropolis.
That's true, but it's the apocalyptic side to it that looks mad - especially when you're in government in errr...London.
But then it's the problem with a lot of the Tory culture war stuff in general. There's something to be tapped into in criticising the left, progressive overreach, etc. And there might be in running against London's problems, perceived and real.
You just have to do it selectively, with some subtlety and intelligence, and not sound like the bloke in the pub who thinks 'Matt Le Tissier has a point' or that you've memed yourselves online into thinking ULEZ conspiracies are widespread. Because most people who don't have opinions or don't care will view you as the crackers, sinister ones rather than those you're attacking.
BBC Braces for the end of the license fee. Let us all hope the end of the License fee, an iniquitious tax which disproportionately hammers the poorest, most frail and vulnerable, in society, is not replaced by taxpayer funds via some other means the BBC is forced to raise what revenue it wants for the stuff it puts out in the free market.
Given that the access method to BBC iPlayer is, currently, to have a license (softly enforced), the whole system of courts, demands, threats etc should vanish.
Will it now? What are you going to do about the terrible lag on (not) live sports that ruins the experience because someone always tells you that there's been a goal two minutes before you see the goal?
The lag is somewhere between deliberate and incompetent implantation.
Unless someone fixes it, streaming will continue to suck arse for sports.
There is also a LAG between BBC HD and Sky News when covering the same event, such as a news report. I've often heard things on BBC at least 2 mins before Sky News Stream in the other room.
Comments
As we've seen over the past two or so years they are seemingly unaware that culture wars are usually decided in favour of the side who seem less mad. But by endlessly railing about ludicrous things or talking in endless apocalyptic terms makes them seem more crackers than the things are criticising.
We've seen an oddening of the Tory Party where whatever the entirely reasonable objections to Khan (let's be honest he's not been great) or parts of what's been termed 'wokeness' - and some articulate them well - they're very much not made by people who think the nation's capital has turned into Blade Runner, and that's a bigger electoral issue than, say, your local services decaying because the council's finances are tightening.
To give an equivalent on the left, lots of people generally support what might be termed 'socialist' policies like taxing the wealthy significantly more for redistributive purposes and public services. But find the kind of people who turn up at marches shouting about class war deeply offputting, moreso than the politicians they criticise.
We're seeing a similar Corbynisation of the Tory Party whereby it denies itself a hearing on things it might actually want to talk about, by going off on crazed tangents beloved of very online activists and staffers.
I think that on this one knowledge of the religious of Singapore (and how it has changed) is helpful.
It's a real melange of religion, and the more committed value the level of tolerance most:
Among Singaporean adults, 26% identify as Buddhist, 18% as Muslim, 17% as Christian, 8% as Hindu, 6% as a follower of Chinese traditional religions like Taoism or Confucianism, and 4% as some other religion, including Indigenous religions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/06/in-singapore-religious-diversity-and-tolerance-go-hand-in-hand/
I interpreted the statement as from the Singaporean Govt which was wrong.
My apologies to Singapore.
We will see!
I do get people being pissed off about the stupidity of the phase one roll out (not easily transferred between suppliers) and therefore the wasted money, but not the personal opposition to getting one.
I was fairly ambivalent, didn't chase getting one, but was fine with it when it happened. Has been handy that the app and meter actually show what we're exporting (solar) too, so I can check the app to decide whether it's a good time to put the washing machine/tumbler on etc - whether the current export (spare electricity) will more than cover the appliance consumption, making that cycle free. There are other options for live measuring export, of course, but the smart meter and app made it easy with no extra work from me.
My daughters haven’t noticed.
I guess they are after the central belt in the main
An effective populist ad takes a real experience that many people have had - feeling nervous about a group of youths hanging about on a street corner, say - and magnifying it into a Major National Threat. Inventing something and claiming Labour will mean more of it is just baffling.
Their case collapsed when we provided physical evidence that the meter was not and had ever been connected to their system…
It still angers me that I had to pay my own legal fees and they faced no consequences for perjury
People who never use cash
People who never watch broadcast TV
I suspect a strong overlap.
Still use cash. A bit.
A
S
H
* YouTube is the top streaming service in the US now, it would be a huge media business all on its own if split out from Alphabet.
Personally couldn't give a rats ass what happens to the Beeb but understand some do
As to the BBC, in the great scheme of things its TV stuff (except news, Parliament etc at critical moments) is not of great importance, but the significance of BBC radio both UK and worldwide is, in the long run, immense.
There are some indications that live radio (whether steam powered, DAB or internet) is coming back into fashion.
Notionals of 62 Tory 18 Lab 9 Green 9 LD, and the Greens are strong locally and targeting it. New seat so tactical voting is blurred with all 3 in play, could easily end up 45 15 15 15 or some such if no local 'understanding' is reached
Jeremy Corbyn could have fought this. I doubt Keir Starmer will even find it in himself to call such ads racist.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/11/michael-gove-stops-papa-johns-store-opening-obesity-fears/ (£££)
Anyway, we're still getting the emails and nothing has so far happened.
I never use cash. Why would I? It's a waste of time and energy and utterly pointless.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bbc-commissioned-half-of-all-uk-tv-scripted-shows-last-year-ampere-research-finds/ar-BB1kubuD
Note that for some live streams, no lag
1. Ignore. Let social media do its thing. Danger then is that they are letting Tory lies go unpunished
2. Call it out as racist or dog whistling. Risk of seeming to be obsessed with finding racism everywhere
3. Dismiss as pathetic last gasp efforts of a failed government that can’t manage public services or the economy. Probably the best and most likely approach, though it won’t be enough to counter the bankrupt council ads
4. Fact check it, point out hypocrisy and encourage the community notes brigade. Probably not worth it with the London dog whistle ads but necessary on the bust councils front
Incoherent nonsense that only makes sense if Twitter and GB News has broken your brain,
The Rest is Entertainment comes from the same podcast group as (among others) The Rest is Politics (Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell), and The Rest is History, all parts of the Goalhanger family, which is the production company founded by Gary Lineker.
https://www.goalhangerpodcasts.com/
Gary Lineker and his Goalhanger teammates on their podcast empire
The rapidly growing company emulates its amiable founder by encouraging hosts and guests ‘to disagree agreeably’
https://www.ft.com/content/5a3c53cb-cad8-4184-9724-21ba236d5f00 (not paywalled)
Sky Sports online. LAG.
BT Sports online. LAG.
ITV online. LAG.
C4 online. LAG.
What else is there?
And the lag is profound – around 120 seconds.
Unless someone fixes it, streaming will continue to suck arse for sports.
Honestly, score spoilers are a trivial matter to avoid given the lag isn't that long.
London is both a. The unfairly favoured home of the wealthy and elite that gets all the investment while the rest of the country crumbles, and b. A shithole that they wouldn’t be seen dead in that makes them glad they live nowhere near.
Not uniquely a British mentality. You get the same doublethink in the US about NYC, in France about Paris, in Ireland about Dublin and probably in every country with a big metropolis.
It was Conservatives Twitter that shared it, but the adv itself had zero branding on it, no Vote Conservative, no PEB, no signage of any kind and it just sort of stops dead at the end.
Will they deny commissioning it, go "oh, it's a third party thing that one of our juniors just shared". (And, if that is an untruth, perhaps get found out).
What exactly was it meant to be?
ETA it is less easy than used to be the case now some people fly their own drones for a faster feed!
Youtube and my hard drive of all my DVD's ripped are what I watch the most now.
I watch very little live TV and the odd thing on catch up.
Their attempt to engage with the youth is feeble. Bringing Youth channel BBC3 back onto terrestrial has been a flop. The ratings have been poor in spite of them seeming to plug every main show that appears on it on BBC1 and 2.
Problem with the BBC is they do not wish to recognise it so instead of considering what the future BBC looks like they cling to what it was. Doesn't help the great sense of entitlement by those at the BBC who think they deserve a job for life. Just look at the reactions to the changes to local radio. The BBC should be visionary to see where the market is going and go for it. But they showed, even as recently with BBC Store, they just don't have a clue.
I'm scratching my head as to what the reason could be!!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/mar/26/russia--ukraine-war-live-ukraine-strikes-warship-that-russia-captured-in-2014
In terms of the current iteration of the culture wars, the woke/anti-woke movements it’s basically two sides who think the world can be perfected if everyone falls in step with their ideology. They are both based on the same wrong premise; the world cannot be perfected there are just an infinite series of trade offs.
But then it's the problem with a lot of the Tory culture war stuff in general. There's something to be tapped into in criticising the left, progressive overreach, etc. And there might be in running against London's problems, perceived and real.
You just have to do it selectively, with some subtlety and intelligence, and not sound like the bloke in the pub who thinks 'Matt Le Tissier has a point' or that you've memed yourselves online into thinking ULEZ conspiracies are widespread. Because most people who don't have opinions or don't care will view you as the crackers, sinister ones rather than those you're attacking.