Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why you shouldn’t rely on Rasmussen polls – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,049
edited 7:10AM in General
Why you shouldn’t rely on Rasmussen polls – politicalbetting.com

This is worth reading and good investigative journalism but also not surprising if you follow the polls.https://t.co/LwSRkmdkzE

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,080
    edited 7:15AM
    First?

    Unlike City and Arsenal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,649
    this sort of explicit coordination with a campaign, coupled with ambiguity about funding sources, means that we're going to label Rasmussen as an intrinsically partisan (R) pollster going forward.

    No. Shit. Sherlock.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553
    FPT

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Muesli said:

    Nasty, attention seeking transphobe. Best ignored.

    Those getting all worked up about Sir Keir Starmer accepting a few freebies are going to shit the bed when they finally notice the Oswald Cobblepot figure waddling up to the opposite side of the despatch box in a few weeks’ time. Crooked as a £4 note and nasty with it too. A few suits and a pair of glasses pale in comparison.

    As I've mentioned downthread, we know who Lord Alli is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, we can be reasonably sure there's a debt being paid.

    Meanwhile Jenrick's leadership campaign has been funded to the tune of 75k by a *completely anonymous* donor who contributed via a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands. So who has bought and paid for him?
    Surely he is not being held to Branson?
    Just thinking if Jenrick goes on the offensive over donations to Labour, he might find himself in a pickle.
    Whoever the lucky winner is has a bit of explaining to do. As will the luckier loser.

    CCHQ are charging each of the final four £50000, with the final two having to stump up another £150k for party funds.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/05/robert-jenrick-frontrunner-tory-leadership

    Now it's for a respectable reason, not an apparently frivolous one, but it's a lot of wonga to find.
    Don't be surprised if one of the finalists drops out to save money, and the members do not get a deciding vote. This will also solve the problem of who responds to the budget, which senior Tories claim to have only just noticed.
    Nah, they noticed last month, I even did a thread on it.

    How the Tories may deal with two massive elections at the same time and a budget

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/08/15/how-the-tories-may-deal-with-two-massive-elections-at-the-same-time-and-a-budget/
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109
    Rasmussen shows its poll findings to Trump before publication, seems to be the main allegation. Embarrassing if true but not the same as falsifying results.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,781
    .

    Rasmussen shows its poll findings to Trump before publication, seems to be the main allegation. Embarrassing if true but not the same as falsifying results.

    More than embarrassing, it's illegal.
    It is in effect a campaign contribution, which given their legal structure, is not permitted.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,219
    Here’s another old article just to give a flavour of Duffield/other Labour MP relationships for background: https://labourlist.org/2023/08/rosie-duffield-lloyd-russell-moyle-canterbury-chief-whip/

    Someone last thread suggested Duffield could pull a Dick Taverne. I was surprised to discover that Taverne is still alive at 95. He sits as a LibDem peer. He famously retained his seat after being deselected by his local Labour Party for his pro-EEC views. He resigned from Parliament and won the subsequent by-election, and retained his seat at the next general election. That was the Feb 1974 election, but he then narrowly lost the seat in the Oct election.

    He joined the SDP when the party was founded. He stood as the SDP candidate in the 1982 Peckham by-election and came a respectable second. He came third in Dulwich in the 1983 general election. In 1996, he was made a LibDem life peer. He last stood for election aged 78 in the 2006 local elections.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,781
    Still, if we're looking fur the next Trafalgar, I have a better candidate.

    Presidential Polling Leads:

    Nevada: Harris +3
    North Carolina: Harris +2

    Georgia: Trump +1
    Arizona: Trump +1
    Wisconsin: Trump +2
    Pennsylvania: Trump +3
    Michigan: Trump +3

    - AtlasIntel -

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1840194530097647836
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553

    Rasmussen shows its poll findings to Trump before publication, seems to be the main allegation. Embarrassing if true but not the same as falsifying results.

    On social media, Rasmussen appeared to legitimize many conspiracy theories on the right, such as election fraud and vaccine denialism.

    Earlier this year, the polling aggregator 538 dropped Rasmussen Reports from its averages and forecasts, saying that the firm couldn’t meet 538’s standards for objectivity and methodology. This drew a major backlash from right-wing media, especially after Rasmussen published a letter from 538 asking the polling firm questions about its procedures and biases.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,567

    Here’s another old article just to give a flavour of Duffield/other Labour MP relationships for background: https://labourlist.org/2023/08/rosie-duffield-lloyd-russell-moyle-canterbury-chief-whip/

    Someone last thread suggested Duffield could pull a Dick Taverne. I was surprised to discover that Taverne is still alive at 95. He sits as a LibDem peer. He famously retained his seat after being deselected by his local Labour Party for his pro-EEC views. He resigned from Parliament and won the subsequent by-election, and retained his seat at the next general election. That was the Feb 1974 election, but he then narrowly lost the seat in the Oct election.

    He joined the SDP when the party was founded. He stood as the SDP candidate in the 1982 Peckham by-election and came a respectable second. He came third in Dulwich in the 1983 general election. In 1996, he was made a LibDem life peer. He last stood for election aged 78 in the 2006 local elections.

    Whilst no party leader ever wants defections from their party, some defections are less upsetting than others.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Rasmussen shows its poll findings to Trump before publication, seems to be the main allegation. Embarrassing if true but not the same as falsifying results.

    More than embarrassing, it's illegal.
    It is in effect a campaign contribution, which given their legal structure, is not permitted.
    Yes but it does not mean their polls are wrong. That's the point. They might well be, but this is not evidence of falsification or error.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    Rasmussen's final 2020 poll was Biden 48% and Trump 47%. So they cannot be ignored even if they have a conservative lean as they got Trump's voteshare spot on last time even if they underestimated Biden's a bit
    "White House Watch - Rasmussen Reports®" https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,219

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Rasmussen shows its poll findings to Trump before publication, seems to be the main allegation. Embarrassing if true but not the same as falsifying results.

    More than embarrassing, it's illegal.
    It is in effect a campaign contribution, which given their legal structure, is not permitted.
    Yes but it does not mean their polls are wrong. That's the point. They might well be, but this is not evidence of falsification or error.
    If you catch someone doing one thing dodgy, it is reasonable to be suspicious that maybe other things they do are dodgy. We already know Rasmussen’s figures show a strong pro-Republican house effect. Now we know they’re giving their figures early to the Trump campaign. There is plenty of reason to be suspicious.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,524
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. HYUFD, but was Rasmussen deemed objective/neutral back in 2020?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,219
    HYUFD said:

    Rasmussen's final 2020 poll was Biden 48% and Trump 47%. So they cannot be ignored even if they have a conservative lean as they got Trump's voteshare spot on last time even if they underestimated Biden's a bit
    "White House Watch - Rasmussen Reports®" https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02

    But hadn’t their earlier polls been considerably more deviant?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    Nigelb said:

    Still, if we're looking fur the next Trafalgar, I have a better candidate.

    Presidential Polling Leads:

    Nevada: Harris +3
    North Carolina: Harris +2

    Georgia: Trump +1
    Arizona: Trump +1
    Wisconsin: Trump +2
    Pennsylvania: Trump +3
    Michigan: Trump +3

    - AtlasIntel -

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1840194530097647836

    In 2016 Trafalgar were the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania both of which he won.

    The fact Atlas have Harris ahead in North Carolina also suggests they aren't Trump biased by default even if they have Trump doing better in the rustbelt than most other pollsters
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Still, if we're looking fur the next Trafalgar, I have a better candidate.

    Presidential Polling Leads:

    Nevada: Harris +3
    North Carolina: Harris +2

    Georgia: Trump +1
    Arizona: Trump +1
    Wisconsin: Trump +2
    Pennsylvania: Trump +3
    Michigan: Trump +3

    - AtlasIntel -

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1840194530097647836

    In 2016 Trafalgar were the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania both of which he won.

    The fact Atlas have Harris ahead in North Carolina also suggests they aren't Trump biased by default even if they have Trump doing better in the rustbelt than most other pollsters
    Is there any evidence that Trafalgar actually conduct polls? As opposed to being quite good guesses?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,045
    Nate Silver really panned 538 earlier for removing Rasmussen from their polls. I wonder if he'll revisit that now.

    https://www.natesilver.net/p/polling-averages-shouldnt-be-political
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,045
    This at least means the BSW is willing to work with the CDU, I guess. And an AfD speaker (which would have eventually happened if the other parties hadn't supported an alternative) could have caused a big headache.

    https://www.dw.com/en/germany-thuringia-lawmakers-pick-cdu-speaker-rejecting-afd/a-70352586
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,080
    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 16,965
    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is lot grittier than you might expect for the quintessential cathedral city
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,138
    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Not that weird, its mostly an anti-Tory vote, as we had a ridiculously bad Tory govt implode.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,742
    edited 8:03AM
    I see the front page of the Sunday Telegraph is dominated by a picture of one of George Clooney's former squeezes.

    Are they a) reading pb.com and b) consequently trolling somebody here?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    edited 8:12AM
    kamski said:

    Nate Silver really panned 538 earlier for removing Rasmussen from their polls. I wonder if he'll revisit that now.

    https://www.natesilver.net/p/polling-averages-shouldnt-be-political

    Rasmussen's final 2020 Pennsylvania poll was Biden 49% and Trump 45% and Biden won the state 50% to 48% so if anything they slightly overestimated Biden's lead there
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/pennsylvania_biden_49_trump_45
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#:~:text=Pennsylvania had 20 electoral votes in the Electoral College.&text=Although Trump had won the,a similarly narrow 1.17% margin.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    edited 8:14AM
    Jenrick on Kuenssberg now ahead of the Tory conference this week, already saying too many low wage immigrants coming to the UK. While also saying he wants to help those on welfare into the 'dignity and security of work'
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,886
    edited 8:13AM
    Good morning everyone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    kamski said:

    This at least means the BSW is willing to work with the CDU, I guess. And an AfD speaker (which would have eventually happened if the other parties hadn't supported an alternative) could have caused a big headache.

    https://www.dw.com/en/germany-thuringia-lawmakers-pick-cdu-speaker-rejecting-afd/a-70352586

    They are but only to keep the AfD out
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,886
    edited 8:18AM
    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury has three Universities in a small-medium sized town (pop ~40k), for one thing.

    I picked that up when I was doing a comparison with Mansfield and Chesterfield with southern places with high profiles, which are both around 75k and just have University branches.
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625
    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    edited 8:20AM
    HYUFD said:

    Jenrick on Kuenssberg now ahead of the Tory conference this week, already saying too many low wage immigrants coming to the UK. While also saying he wants to help those on welfare into the 'dignity and security of work'

    Jenrick also says he has a cap on migration policy unlike Badenoch and will withdraw from the ECHR unlike Badenoch so clearly focused on shoring up the right over her. Also says it is natural for him as a conservative to back Republican candidates in November although he has respect for Harris too and as a UK leader would work with either.

    Emphasises his working class parents and small town, Midlands values
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    HYUFD said:

    Jenrick on Kuenssberg now ahead of the Tory conference this week

    I have watched the other three on Trevor Phillips (Sky) and frankly they underwhelm and Jenrick is no better

    I have little confidence any of them are the answer for the conservative party but then there are 5 years of labour ahead no matter what happens with Starmer and his love for freebies and cronyism
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625
    HYUFD said:

    Jenrick on Kuenssberg now ahead of the Tory conference this week, already saying too many low wage immigrants coming to the UK. While also saying he wants to help those on welfare into the 'dignity and security of work'

    He’s not wrong on either. Low wage migrants coming here often bring economically inactive dependents too.

    His interview seemed quite assured but he was not really tested.

    Apparently he painted over a mural once. It was not mentioned.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,762
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,349
    Oh no, not another massive Russian ammunition storage facility on fire.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1840245821561856230

    That’s three of the four main forward ammo dumps hit in the last fortnight, will be months of ammunition in each of them, now all cooked off and usuless to the Russians.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    edited 8:23AM
    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    Kemi now on and says while migrant numbers matter, culture matters more
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,349
    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,567

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
    Non-payers won't be sent to prison. Which, bluntly, makes sense with the prison capacity situation we currently have.

    As for the "abolish the licence fee" thing, most of the alternatives look worse.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,762
    And on US polls, very few are worth a jot.

    So many unknowns about the US election. Motivation within the core voting blocs, likelihood to vote of age cohorts, presence of ballot issues, variation in opportunity to vote…..

    The best indicator for me is the results of recent elections, and they tend to point towards a more motivated Democratic vote.

    Hence my belief that Harris/Walz will win what they won last time + NC + Another. A very resounding win.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,567

    HYUFD said:

    Jenrick on Kuenssberg now ahead of the Tory conference this week

    I have watched the other three on Trevor Phillips (Sky) and frankly they underwhelm and Jenrick is no better

    I have little confidence any of them are the answer for the conservative party but then there are 5 years of labour ahead no matter what happens with Starmer and his love for freebies and cronyism
    Any of them showing much sign of being able to make it five years, rather than nine?

    Battered, discredited government beats implausible opposition. See 2005.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,080
    Taz said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jenrick on Kuenssberg now ahead of the Tory conference this week, already saying too many low wage immigrants coming to the UK. While also saying he wants to help those on welfare into the 'dignity and security of work'

    He’s not wrong on either. Low wage migrants coming here often bring economically inactive dependents too.

    His interview seemed quite assured but he was not really tested.

    Apparently he painted over a mural once. It was not mentioned.
    He is not saying anything remotely new. But he has been part of the Tory set up that has failed on these things. Can he describe how he, after all these years, can succeed?
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
    It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050

    And on US polls, very few are worth a jot.

    So many unknowns about the US election. Motivation within the core voting blocs, likelihood to vote of age cohorts, presence of ballot issues, variation in opportunity to vote…..

    The best indicator for me is the results of recent elections, and they tend to point towards a more motivated Democratic vote.

    Hence my belief that Harris/Walz will win what they won last time + NC + Another. A very resounding win.

    On current polls I expect Trump to pick up Arizona and Georgia from the Biden 2020 states and maybe Wisconsin too. The election will come down to PA and NC
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,362
    @implausibleblog
    Kemi Badenoch, "People didn't understand what we stood for"

    Trevor Philips, "The public knew exactly what you stood for.. Parties under Boris Johnson.. Market chaos under Liz Truss.. Record immigration figures under Rishi Sunak.. The public knew what you were about and that's why they didn't vote for you"

    Kemi Badenoch, "I disagree"

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1840298871685087591
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,762
    HYUFD said:

    And on US polls, very few are worth a jot.

    So many unknowns about the US election. Motivation within the core voting blocs, likelihood to vote of age cohorts, presence of ballot issues, variation in opportunity to vote…..

    The best indicator for me is the results of recent elections, and they tend to point towards a more motivated Democratic vote.

    Hence my belief that Harris/Walz will win what they won last time + NC + Another. A very resounding win.

    On current polls I expect Trump to pick up Arizona and Georgia from the Biden 2020 states and maybe Wisconsin too. The election will come down to PA and NC
    That’s because you’re taking the polls at face value. I’m not.
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
    Non-payers won't be sent to prison. Which, bluntly, makes sense with the prison capacity situation we currently have.

    As for the "abolish the licence fee" thing, most of the alternatives look worse.
    Non payers are never imprisoned for non payment of the license fee but for non payment of the fine.

    It we be like parking when that was decriminalised.

    As for the license fee. The alternatives look fine. The license fee made sense in the days of three or four channels. Now funding the BBC via a license fee does not. The license fee will go. It is when not if.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,567
    Scott_xP said:

    @implausibleblog
    Kemi Badenoch, "People didn't understand what we stood for"

    Trevor Philips, "The public knew exactly what you stood for.. Parties under Boris Johnson.. Market chaos under Liz Truss.. Record immigration figures under Rishi Sunak.. The public knew what you were about and that's why they didn't vote for you"

    Kemi Badenoch, "I disagree"

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1840298871685087591

    In a Badenoch leadership, we might hear that a lot. It's not a good look.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,742
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
    Once decriminalized, it will provoke a massive and immediate funding crisis at the BBC.

    Journos better start asking Starmer what his position is on bailing out the BBC.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,080
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
    It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
    There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.

    There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.

    Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.

    I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
    Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625
    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.

    There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.

    Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.

    I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
    Great, you pay for it then.

    I rarely watch BBC TV and never listen to BBC radio now radio 2 decided it no longer wants to cater to my generation.

    I don’t see why I should have to fund it, and more and more people feel the same and are cancelling their license fee.

    Good.

    It was the only sensible thing Nadine Dorries was suggesting in office.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109
    Boris Johnson is convinced that Covid WAS made in a Chinese lab
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13901757/Boris-johnson-covid-chinese-lab-memoir-wuhan-botched-experiment.html

    Boris Johnson: I am no longer sure ‘medieval’ lockdowns beat Covid
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/28/boris-johnson-medieval-lockdowns-covid/ (£££)

    Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,162
    Really enjoyed that Wires Over The Border film (1974).

    Thanks for sharing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050
    Badenoch says 'Israel showing moral clarity in dealing with its enemies'
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,032
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
    Even when Labour do something good, they do it for a crap reason. Are crimes only crimes if men do them?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,080

    Scott_xP said:

    @implausibleblog
    Kemi Badenoch, "People didn't understand what we stood for"

    Trevor Philips, "The public knew exactly what you stood for.. Parties under Boris Johnson.. Market chaos under Liz Truss.. Record immigration figures under Rishi Sunak.. The public knew what you were about and that's why they didn't vote for you"

    Kemi Badenoch, "I disagree"

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1840298871685087591

    In a Badenoch leadership, we might hear that a lot. It's not a good look.
    Of the four hopeless candidates there is little doubt that Kemi is the one with the potential to generate disruption and be the cause of PB posts and other mayhem. There is a character lurking there with a generalised potential for unpredictability. Not wholly unlike Truss and Boris. They both did fine and the country is very proud of them so she ought to win.
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
    There are two sides to parking. Parking offences on the grounds of statutory bodies like councils and railways. Enforced by Penalty Charges. This is fine.

    The Wild West is Private Parking with its Parking Charge Notices designed to look like the council Penalty Charges enforced by private companies who send scary letters out to people extorting money from them. These would operate on supermarkets, shopping centres, hotels and other private land.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,742

    And on US polls, very few are worth a jot.

    So many unknowns about the US election. Motivation within the core voting blocs, likelihood to vote of age cohorts, presence of ballot issues, variation in opportunity to vote…..

    The best indicator for me is the results of recent elections, and they tend to point towards a more motivated Democratic vote.

    Hence my belief that Harris/Walz will win what they won last time + NC + Another. A very resounding win.

    Yes, recent polling versus actual results have shown the Democrats to do far better. Plus, abortion referenda show the polling to be way off the actual right-to-choose votes.

    Plus, there are some truly divisive Republican Senators seeking re-election/standing as candidates in Florida, Arizona, Ohio and Texas. I am expecting some serious down-ballot harm from their standing. And up-ballot benefits to Harris.
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625
    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jenrick on Kuenssberg now ahead of the Tory conference this week, already saying too many low wage immigrants coming to the UK. While also saying he wants to help those on welfare into the 'dignity and security of work'

    He’s not wrong on either. Low wage migrants coming here often bring economically inactive dependents too.

    His interview seemed quite assured but he was not really tested.

    Apparently he painted over a mural once. It was not mentioned.
    He is not saying anything remotely new. But he has been part of the Tory set up that has failed on these things. Can he describe how he, after all these years, can succeed?
    You’re right and this really was skirted around. As I said he was not really tested. She should have gone more on this.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761

    Boris Johnson is convinced that Covid WAS made in a Chinese lab
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13901757/Boris-johnson-covid-chinese-lab-memoir-wuhan-botched-experiment.html

    Boris Johnson: I am no longer sure ‘medieval’ lockdowns beat Covid
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/28/boris-johnson-medieval-lockdowns-covid/ (£££)

    Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.

    Boris Johnson is well known for his expertise in forensic viral genetics.

    That and trying to upstage the Tory party Conference.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,742
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,429
    Sandpit said:

    Oh no, not another massive Russian ammunition storage facility on fire.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1840245821561856230

    That’s three of the four main forward ammo dumps hit in the last fortnight, will be months of ammunition in each of them, now all cooked off and usuless to the Russians.

    Just another smoking accident


  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625
    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
    It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
    There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
    Even when they do they don’t always get paid.

    I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.

    A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
    Brexit lost some Labour voters to LDs and Greens.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,227

    Boris Johnson is convinced that Covid WAS made in a Chinese lab
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13901757/Boris-johnson-covid-chinese-lab-memoir-wuhan-botched-experiment.html

    Boris Johnson: I am no longer sure ‘medieval’ lockdowns beat Covid
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/28/boris-johnson-medieval-lockdowns-covid/ (£££)

    Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.

    Lockdowns didn't beat covid.

    What beat covid was herd immunity from everyone catching it, preferably after being vaccinated first.

    Lockdowns were a way of buying time for vaccines to be developed and produced.
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625
    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
    Even when Labour do something good, they do it for a crap reason. Are crimes only crimes if men do them?
    True, but it does make it harder for the BBC to oppose it if it’s dressed up as a ‘progressive’ measure.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109
    Foxy said:

    Boris Johnson is convinced that Covid WAS made in a Chinese lab
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13901757/Boris-johnson-covid-chinese-lab-memoir-wuhan-botched-experiment.html

    Boris Johnson: I am no longer sure ‘medieval’ lockdowns beat Covid
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/28/boris-johnson-medieval-lockdowns-covid/ (£££)

    Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.

    Boris Johnson is well known for his expertise in forensic viral genetics.

    That and trying to upstage the Tory party Conference.
    The funny thing is, re the Telegraph headline, that lockdowns were sold as protecting the NHS, not as eliminating Covid. I can only imagine it is a clever ploy to make us buy the book in order to see if Boris really has misunderstood his own policy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,429
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.

    There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.

    Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.

    I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
    Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
    If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.

    No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.

    I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.

    Which would give real independence for the BBC.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,050

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
    They did in some Remain Home counties seats the Tories lost to the LDs and seats like Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham the Tories lost to Labour which only stayed Tory in 2019 to keep Corbyn out but abandoned the Tories as soon as Starmer replaced Corbyn
  • TresTres Posts: 2,651

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
    weren't you also hearing loud and clear that the tories were gonna hold the seat you were working in?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,119
    While we’re on US state polling, any fans of meteorological determinism out there?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna173120

    North Carolina is the fulcrum of the flooding. Pretty devastating. I hope Biden’s administration has some good federal support on the way.
  • FossFoss Posts: 899
    edited 9:11AM
    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.

    There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.

    Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.

    I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
    Last year the average Brit watched about 46 minutes of BBC content a day (inc catchup), down from about 70 minutes in 2016. Once that gets below below a certain level - perhaps 20 or 10 minutes a day - forced funding of the BBC as we know it really does look unviable.
  • Rosie Duffield is an absolute disgrace.

    If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?

    She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.

    There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.

    Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.

    I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
    Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
    If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.

    No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.

    I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.

    Which would give real independence for the BBC.
    The BBC already sells its programmes worldwide, either as the finished article or as licensed formats. Some are already co-productions with foreign broadcasters, such as Dr Who. However, some of the rights to what we think of as BBC programmes are held by independent production companies. Conversely, the BBC pays for formats too, such as The Apprentice, once the major income source for its executive producer, one DJ Trump.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109
    Foss said:

    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.

    There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.

    Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.

    I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
    Last year the average Brit watched about 46 minutes of BBC content a day (inc catchup), down from about 70 minutes in 2016. Once that gets below below a certain level - perhaps 20 or 10 minutes a day - forced funding of it really does look unviable.
    Many countries have television licences. They are not unique to Britain or the BBC.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
    weren't you also hearing loud and clear that the tories were gonna hold the seat you were working in?
    I don't think he claimed that this time, indeed kept pretty quiet about his canvassing.
  • Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
    Non-payers won't be sent to prison. Which, bluntly, makes sense with the prison capacity situation we currently have.

    As for the "abolish the licence fee" thing, most of the alternatives look worse.
    Worse in what way? I don't watch live broadcast TV, so don't pay a licence fee. The only way it could be worse for me is if it was added to tax in some way.
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,625

    Rosie Duffield is an absolute disgrace.

    If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?

    She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzz
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,109
    TimS said:

    While we’re on US state polling, any fans of meteorological determinism out there?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna173120

    North Carolina is the fulcrum of the flooding. Pretty devastating. I hope Biden’s administration has some good federal support on the way.

    As Michael Moore showed, Americans often do not recognise Federal assistance as such. Those soldiers and Army engineers fixing stuff? Nothing to do with the government!
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,727
    Both Jenrick and Badenoch quite good on Laura. Jenrick quite shouty as if he is speaking at a rally. Badenoch sounded more argumentative. Wonder if she is going down a cultural alley but might go down well with the party faithful. Who knows?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,781

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
    Once decriminalized, it will provoke a massive and immediate funding crisis at the BBC.

    Journos better start asking Starmer what his position is on bailing out the BBC.
    Just fund it from taxation. Would save a few million in license fee admin and enforcement. And would be a progressive move.

    You could then have your debate about its purpose. But separate the two arguments, one of which seems deliberately designed to make the national broadcaster unpopular.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,119

    TimS said:

    While we’re on US state polling, any fans of meteorological determinism out there?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna173120

    North Carolina is the fulcrum of the flooding. Pretty devastating. I hope Biden’s administration has some good federal support on the way.

    As Michael Moore showed, Americans often do not recognise Federal assistance as such. Those soldiers and Army engineers fixing stuff? Nothing to do with the government!
    If there’s no federal assistance though, I imagine they might be quite quick to blame the government.
  • FossFoss Posts: 899

    Foss said:

    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.

    There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.

    Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.

    I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
    Last year the average Brit watched about 46 minutes of BBC content a day (inc catchup), down from about 70 minutes in 2016. Once that gets below below a certain level - perhaps 20 or 10 minutes a day - forced funding of it really does look unviable.
    Many countries have television licences. They are not unique to Britain or the BBC.
    If few end up watching it then it’s just overpaid make-work for people who couldn’t hack it in the regular market.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761
    edited 9:25AM
    Interesting polling on the Conservatives from Yougov. Makes even Starmers polling look good!



    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.bsky.social/post/3l5bqtmnfza2y

    "It’s also notable how deep the negativity is. A majority of pretty much every key social and political group has a negative opinion of the Tories, including 55% of over 65s and 56% of Leave voters, who would have been viewed as dependable Conservative voters just a few years ago. The sole exception are Conservative voters themselves, but even then, one in six (17%) have an unfavourable view of a party they voted for just three months ago.

    Returning to power will require changing the minds of some of those who voted for other parties, only a small minority of whom are amenable to the Conservatives at the moment. Only a quarter of Reform UK voters (26%), one in nine Lib Dems (11%) and just 4% of Labour voters currently say they see the Tories positively."
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,093

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
    So the question for all of us in this parliament is whether we'll be let out of prism early or not...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,138

    Boris Johnson is convinced that Covid WAS made in a Chinese lab
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13901757/Boris-johnson-covid-chinese-lab-memoir-wuhan-botched-experiment.html

    Boris Johnson: I am no longer sure ‘medieval’ lockdowns beat Covid
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/28/boris-johnson-medieval-lockdowns-covid/ (£££)

    Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.

    Basically still telling his audience whatever they want to hear. Also asked the army to draw up plans to invade Holland.....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,320
    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    What does that mean in practice

    Your last sentence is spot on
    It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
    There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
    Even when they do they don’t always get paid.

    I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.

    A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
    A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761

    Boris Johnson is convinced that Covid WAS made in a Chinese lab
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13901757/Boris-johnson-covid-chinese-lab-memoir-wuhan-botched-experiment.html

    Boris Johnson: I am no longer sure ‘medieval’ lockdowns beat Covid
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/28/boris-johnson-medieval-lockdowns-covid/ (£££)

    Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.

    Basically still telling his audience whatever they want to hear. Also asked the army to draw up plans to invade Holland.....
    Might lose him the anti-vax vote.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,911
    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
    Once decriminalized, it will provoke a massive and immediate funding crisis at the BBC.

    Journos better start asking Starmer what his position is on bailing out the BBC.
    Will it though? Are you or I going to stop paying our licence fee because it’s now a civil offence, any more than we just park randomly on double yellow lines?

    I assume non payment will rise a bit, but I’m not convinced there are hordes of budding licence fee refuseniks who were just waiting for this moment.
    I am delighted to let PB know that the dawn raid on my flat by TV Licensing SEAL team twat did not happen last week, despite six letters warning us about it.

    We're moving again in January; Tora Bora (as we now call it) just doesn't feel safe anymore.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,742
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
    weren't you also hearing loud and clear that the tories were gonna hold the seat you were working in?
    Well, until Reform stood...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,119

    Rosie Duffield is an absolute disgrace.

    If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?

    She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.

    She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.

    She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.

    From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,886

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Labour to decriminalise non payment of the license fee.

    Apparently doing it for ‘women’

    Next step abolish the license fee and let the BBC raise its own funds rather than extorting it from the public.

    https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/1840265644652003486?s=61

    Finally something positive from the new government.

    Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.

    However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
    Once decriminalized, it will provoke a massive and immediate funding crisis at the BBC.

    Journos better start asking Starmer what his position is on bailing out the BBC.
    It will be your credit rating going west for non-payment rather than a Court Appearance.

    Which is more painful?

  • TresTres Posts: 2,651
    Foxy said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Looking at Rosie Duffield's constituency, there is an odd thing about Kent cathedral city seats (Canterbury and Rochester). The LDs are nowhere in either seat (8% and 4.4% respectively). Go along the road to Chichester and, following a 31 point swing the LDs got 49% ofthe vote.

    Canterbury is full of Corbyn voting students, Rochester was 64% Leave but Chichester just 50.9% Leave. That explains why the left vote goes Labour not LD in the former and the LDs do much better in Chichester than Rochester
    Hilarious that years on you still see everything through the prism of a leave/remain snapshot. Which was itself just a function of demographics.

    Just go direct to the demographics. They are more up to date.
    The last GE was very much still through a leave/remain prism.

    47% of Remainers voted Labour but just 19% of Leavers voted Labour.

    37% of Leavers voted Tory but just 16% of Remainers.

    17% of Remainers voted LD but just 7% of Leavers.

    28% of Leavers voted Reform but just 3% of Remainers.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

    Unless Tugendhat becomes Tory leader (who could pick up some Remainers from the LDs and Labour even if he loses a few more Leavers to Reform) I doubt that changes much
    The last election was almost entirely an anti-Tory prism.

    The votes the Government lost due to Brexit had already been lost in 2017/2019.

    I didn't hear one voter on the doorstep changing their vote due to Brexit.
    weren't you also hearing loud and clear that the tories were gonna hold the seat you were working in?
    I don't think he claimed that this time, indeed kept pretty quiet about his canvassing.
    i must be thinking of someone else then
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,478
    TimS said:

    Rosie Duffield is an absolute disgrace.

    If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?

    She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.

    She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.

    She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.

    From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
    The facts that matter, reported on PB! ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.