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.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
And radio. It tends to get forgotten, but still has a very large audience. A lot of dross, but many gems, too.
The RAJAR figures for Q2 2024 continue to highlight how audiences value BBC Radio with 32m people tuning in each week for live output across the stations, with a share of 42.6%. The biggest population increase in 75 years now sees a record 50.8 million people in the UK listening to radio.
There was a boost for Radio 1 and Greg James’ Breakfast Show, which remains the biggest breakfast show in the UK for young people. The start of the summer of sport also saw listener figures increase for BBC Radio 5 Live and BBC 5 Sports Extra, although this period does not include Wimbledon or the final of Men’s Euro 2024.
Isn't radio listening just a reflection of how many people travel by car?
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
lol
TwiX is already building up to the Starmer revelation
The assassins are not done yet. They may not succeed, but they clearly have a plan and a process and we have seen only part
Yeah, right. Even Isabel Oakshott the other night was clear that she did not know what this revelation was, although she ruled out his sexuality (to the apparent dismay of the TalkTV guy) and hinted that she might know its general nature, if indeed it existed at all.
And the anti-Sue Gray stuff seems to be coming from civil servants and perhaps SpAds rather than MPs.
Badenoch says 'Israel showing moral clarity in dealing with its enemies'
Well, yes. Wars tend to add moral clarity. That's kind of the point.
Somebody once said that wars can be seen as a way of changing the legislative frame: the laws you abide by prior are different to those during. Wars also trigger sanctions and conditions against you: this is why the Russians refer to the Ukraine invasion as a "special military operation". It always comes a a surprise to me that lawyers are so heavily involved in warfare.
Not really moral clarity - unless by that she just means manichean ?
See also, GWB and Iraq.
Actually when it comes to Israel's enemies a manichean view isn't such a bad idea. That being said wars need to be fought with a strategy. And one can't ignore the fact that Israel's Prime minister doesn't necessarily have much of a future when the fighting stops due to corruption charges, his failure to protect the borders on 7 October and his previously ambiguous position on Hamas
Do the dead civilians merit a footnote in your philosophy ?
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
She'll be very popular with a sub section of the female population. And some men too who don't really care for the lads either. Not sure you understand the culture wars I'm afraid.
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.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
And radio. It tends to get forgotten, but still has a very large audience. A lot of dross, but many gems, too.
The RAJAR figures for Q2 2024 continue to highlight how audiences value BBC Radio with 32m people tuning in each week for live output across the stations, with a share of 42.6%. The biggest population increase in 75 years now sees a record 50.8 million people in the UK listening to radio.
There was a boost for Radio 1 and Greg James’ Breakfast Show, which remains the biggest breakfast show in the UK for young people. The start of the summer of sport also saw listener figures increase for BBC Radio 5 Live and BBC 5 Sports Extra, although this period does not include Wimbledon or the final of Men’s Euro 2024.
Isn't radio listening just a reflection of how many people travel by car?
And phones. Don't forget phones. Not everyone is paying for Spotify.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
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.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
Are you suggesting that the BBC has easy access to income streams, but they just haven’t bothered to spend the “time and effort” to realise them? Get real!
A masssive f***ing YES is the answer to that question.
They are an organisation sitting on one of the most valuable media archives in the world, and have done little to nothing to monetise it, being instead focussed on what they are producing today and tomorrow.
A lot of this media was produced decades ago, when the contracts didn’t know what the internet was, so there’s a job of work to get the licenceing sorted. But that’s exactly what Disney did, and they’re now making billions from their streaming service. The BBC mindset is totally risk-averse to this sort of venture.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Are you an expert in streaming licensing rights?
Disney+ does have a revenue of about $20 billion a year, but I note Disney+ burnt through about $11.5 billion in losses before it started turning a profit this year. Their profit in 2024 Q3 was only £47 million. Who is going to provide an equivalent $11.5 billion investment for your plan for the BBC?
Here is a good summary of the issues, ranging from picture and sound quality, to music rights, to residual payments to actors.
The BBC has already made the investment on the platform itself, it would be trivial to put up most content from the last few years straight away, and then slowly work their way through the back catalogue over time.
It was planned to sell a lot of back catalogue internationally via Britbox. An earlier joint venture with ITV was blocked on competition grounds.
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.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
How do you/they watch sport then?
I don't like the sports that are broadcast live by the mainstream companies. I can't watch live DH mountain biking unless I pay for a Discovery Plus subscription, so I catch the race on YouTube later that evening. Redbull are my main channel for the sports I like, so I can pick up highlights and the odd livestream on their YouTube Channel. None of my lads like mainstream sports, and my youngest and middle lad don't even own TVs. They don't live their lives governed by what's on the telly.
Badenoch says 'Israel showing moral clarity in dealing with its enemies'
Well, yes. Wars tend to add moral clarity. That's kind of the point.
Somebody once said that wars can be seen as a way of changing the legislative frame: the laws you abide by prior are different to those during. Wars also trigger sanctions and conditions against you: this is why the Russians refer to the Ukraine invasion as a "special military operation". It always comes a a surprise to me that lawyers are so heavily involved in warfare.
Not really moral clarity - unless by that she just means manichean ?
See also, GWB and Iraq.
Actually when it comes to Israel's enemies a manichean view isn't such a bad idea. That being said wars need to be fought with a strategy. And one can't ignore the fact that Israel's Prime minister doesn't necessarily have much of a future when the fighting stops due to corruption charges, his failure to protect the borders on 7 October and his previously ambiguous position on Hamas
Do the dead civilians merit a footnote in your philosophy ?
Well yes. Killing a whole load of civilians without a clear strategy for peace afterwards is a problem. The trouble is the that the MSM is either anti-Israel or more concerned with human interest stories like 'the ordinary people affected by war.' Most people are blissfully unaware of how the Hezbollah leadership has been entirely decapitated.
Badenoch says 'Israel showing moral clarity in dealing with its enemies'
Well, yes. Wars tend to add moral clarity. That's kind of the point.
Somebody once said that wars can be seen as a way of changing the legislative frame: the laws you abide by prior are different to those during. Wars also trigger sanctions and conditions against you: this is why the Russians refer to the Ukraine invasion as a "special military operation". It always comes a a surprise to me that lawyers are so heavily involved in warfare.
Wars deliver moral certainty, or at least the appearance of it, not quite the same thing.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
I am loving these hot takes on the Duffield letter.
Keep plugging away guys, there has to be a silver lining to this somewhere.
You're a Labour MP: do you go with the government, and the baubles that could bring, or Rosie Duffield, who has a known personal issue with Starmer and will piss off all your young woke activists?
I'm not suggesting that this isn't a minor disaster for Starmer in terms of broader public perception. But amongst Labour MPs, I think it will be like Johnson - if he continues to collect lots of freebies then he will be in serious touble, for the moment he's fine.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
I find many fingers angrily jabbing in the direction of Simon Case, the Boris Johnson-appointed cabinet secretary. If I were to sink a beer every time I hear a Labour person say he needs to be ushered out of the building as soon as possible, I would require hospital treatment for alcohol poisoning.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
lol
TwiX is already building up to the Starmer revelation
The assassins are not done yet. They may not succeed, but they clearly have a plan and a process and we have seen only part
Yeah, right. Even Isabel Oakshott the other night was clear that she did not know what this revelation was, although she ruled out his sexuality (to the apparent dismay of the TalkTV guy) and hinted that she might know its general nature, if indeed it existed at all.
And the anti-Sue Gray stuff seems to be coming from civil servants and perhaps SpAds rather than MPs.
You think the plotting is finished and the gunpowder returned to storage?
Here’s the Guardian/Observer this morning:
“Keir Starmer’s personal ratings dropped further during his first Labour conference as prime minister, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
While party leaders hope for a conference bounce as a result of wall-to-wall media coverage, Starmer suffered the reverse effect, as his ratings plunged to their lowest ever level, and well below those of Rishi Sunak.”
The polls themselves are bad enough, but check the tone of voice. They are positively gleeful at Starmer’s suffering. They loathe him. This will continue
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
The director appears to be a guy with a Russian-sounding surname, with accountancy qualifications from South Africa and Colorado, who has or has had involvement with a string of companies including a chain of academy schools.
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
That is four years old. Aiui the BBC now owns the international part of Britbox, and the home part is now ITVx.
I noticed yesterday that both Apple TV and ITVx can stream me programmes from BBC iPlayer here, for a price (although when I tried to get free BBC content via ITVX it returned an error, so maybe the latter is blocked outside the UK?). The BBC surely didn’t provide that for free. BBC also provides every NPR station with an hour of world news daily from the World Service, to save American radio buying an atlas and sending reporters abroad. That must bring in a decent sum?
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
The director appears to be a guy with a Russian-sounding surname, with accountancy qualifications from South Africa and Colorado, who has or has had involvement with a string of companies including a chain of academy schools.
Jenrick's situation may or may not be bad wrt this donation.
But mentioning it as a counterpoint is also missing an important point about the Alli mess. As far as I'm aware, this fellow has only donated to Jenrick. He, and a few people about him, are the only people he has (potentially) bought influence over.
Alli has donated to many senior figures within Labour. Any influence he may have wished to exploit are much wider within Labour.
The Labour government is wildly unpopular already. And this is BEFORE they do any of the tough economic stuff
Starmer getting dressed and housed by Ali makes him look bought and paid for. Forget the legalities (I'm certain the lawyer Starmer didn't break any rules), he just looks weak and a skinflint. It's time freebies to MPs were better regulated.
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.
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
Posted this yesterday -
The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
Assuming this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it, I think Tortoise are the establishment journos attempting to buy out the Observer) the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
As someone else mentioned yesterday, the final two candidates for the leadership have to stump up 150k each to CCHQ for the privilege of being in the final two.
So one single anonymous entity has bought at least 50% of Jenrick's campaign for him.
Who is this person, and to what will Jenrick owe them? At least with Lord Alli, you know who he is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, you have a fairly good idea there's a debt being paid. With Jenrick, you have no such idea.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the anonymous donor is V. Putin, but it does show how easily a malicious state actor could anonymously buy the leader of the opposition off for the princely sum of... considerably less than some people on PB make in a year. In fact, some of the richer punters here could have a whip round and we could own the leader of the opposition for approximately the same cost as a mid-range luxury sedan. And nobody would ever know. I mean, if Jenrick suddenly comes out in favour of banning pineapple on pizza, we'll know... but nobody else would.
Then there's the wider issue that it completely blunts the Conservatives' ability to attack Labour on sleaze. Our guy took 30k off Lord Alli for clothes? Yeah well, your guy was bought and paid for by an anonymous shell company in the British Virgin Islands. The optics, as they say, are terrible.
From a betting perspective, this could be a very good time to back Kemi, assuming enough MPs or members see Jenrick as a busted flush. Considering his role in the Richard Desmond affair, it suggests a pattern of very poor judgement at the very least.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
I am loving these hot takes on the Duffield letter.
Keep plugging away guys, there has to be a silver lining to this somewhere.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
lol
TwiX is already building up to the Starmer revelation
The assassins are not done yet. They may not succeed, but they clearly have a plan and a process and we have seen only part
Yeah, right. Even Isabel Oakshott the other night was clear that she did not know what this revelation was, although she ruled out his sexuality (to the apparent dismay of the TalkTV guy) and hinted that she might know its general nature, if indeed it existed at all.
And the anti-Sue Gray stuff seems to be coming from civil servants and perhaps SpAds rather than MPs.
You think the plotting is finished and the gunpowder returned to storage?
Here’s the Guardian/Observer this morning:
“Keir Starmer’s personal ratings dropped further during his first Labour conference as prime minister, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
While party leaders hope for a conference bounce as a result of wall-to-wall media coverage, Starmer suffered the reverse effect, as his ratings plunged to their lowest ever level, and well below those of Rishi Sunak.”
The polls themselves are bad enough, but check the tone of voice. They are positively gleeful at Starmer’s suffering. They loathe him. This will continue
Au contraire, I do not think any serious plotting has started, although I've no doubt it will do in time. I was among the first to point out Starmer is a lawyer first and a politician not at all.
But what I am saying is that there is no big ‘revelation’ that will destroy Starmer's hegemony. TwiX's fireworks will be damp squibs.
The Labour government is wildly unpopular already. And this is BEFORE they do any of the tough economic stuff
I can't say I've been impressed with Starmer thus far. However I am deeply reluctant to go after him even if he has been hypocritical in his statements. If he were to step down as PM who exactly would replace him? As a former DPP he does have a degree of credibility that much of the Labour front bench lacks. We are going through a very shaky period internationally particularly with the US election coming up. Do we really need another Westminster psychodrama?
As for all the questions around Lord Alli, it is unclear where the corruption is. If he has chosen to make donations because he wants to help the Labour party what is wrong with that? Some people are actually generous. This is a problem for the right. I listened to a discussion recently in which young patriotic conservatives were bemoaning the difference between donors on the left and the right in the US. Those on the left often do it because they believe in it. Those on the right are doing it because they expect something for themselves in return. It's cynicism to assume he's only doing it for personal gain. And if it is for personal gain might that not just be his ego? That he likes being a benefactor to the Prime minister?
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
In a parallel universe, had Rishi stayed loyal to Boris then Boris would have lost to Starmer but more narrowly than he did with no Truss and Kwarteng budget disaster and less leakage to Reform and Farage would not have bothered to come back.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Tory leader and Leader of the Opposition and with an excellent chance of beating an already unpopular Starmer government at the next general election. Instead, because of his ego demanding he should instantly be PM and lack of political instinct (shown by calling an early election too rather than wait for immigration to fall with Rwanda and tighter salary requirements for visas and Farage to be in the US), by knifing Boris he will go down in history as the worst Tory leader in history in terms of seats won and voteshare at a GE.
Even if he can console himself with his 3/4 of a billion dollars family net worth in their California beachfront mansion it will still not be No 10
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.
I'd like to thank the Tories for taking the heat off Labour. With the calibre of candidates on offer, I suspect SKS can't believe his luck.
Line from yesterday's Times:
There’s a Blair-era quip that is gaining new currency at present. “You go to Labour conference and wonder why you voted Labour. Then you arrive at Tory conference and remember.”
Until somebody can prove corruption the idea SKS is in trouble is lunacy. People who have always hated SKS are wishcasting.
Unless Starmer resigns or meets his maker, it takes 20% of Labour MPs to nominate a candidate against him, which then goes to a membership run off ballot. That's a very high bar.
In the unlikely event of such a challenge, I suspect it could only happen with a candidate substantially to his left.
Until somebody can prove corruption the idea SKS is in trouble is lunacy. People who have always hated SKS are wishcasting.
It's not corruption, it's Starmer taking thousands of freebies from Ali. 32k for work clothes? A couple of grand for specs? Anyone sane would ask why Ali loves spending money on Labour politicians. Anyone sane would also ask why we tolerate any politicians from any party accepting thousands of pounds from donors. It needs to stop.
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
In a parallel universe, had Rishi stayed loyal to Boris then Boris would have lost to Starmer but more narrowly than he did with no Truss and Kwarteng budget disaster and less leakage to Reform and Farage would not have bothered to come back.
Rishi would now be odds on to be Tory leader and Leader of the Opposition and with an excellent chance of beating an already unpopular Starmer government at the next general election. Instead, because of his ego demanding he should instantly be PM and lack of political instinct (shown by calling an early election too rather than wait for immigration to fall with Rwanda and tighter salary requirements for visas and Farage to be in the US), by knifing Boris he will go down in history as the worst Tory leader in history in terms of seats won and voteshare at a GE.
Even if he can console himself with his 3/4 of a billion dollars family net worth in their California beachfront mansion it will still not be No 10
In the real world, Rishi has already been Prime Minister which is more than most of us achieve. As John Major said, it falls to few to lead their country.
And Boris would likely have been ousted by the Privileges Committee a few weeks later in any case.
Better starting points for alternate histories might be: Cameron waiting for an agreed Brexit position for the referendum; Boris replacing Cameron in 2016 rather than Theresa May (he was favourite before Gove defected); Liz Truss not imploding.
Until somebody can prove corruption the idea SKS is in trouble is lunacy. People who have always hated SKS are wishcasting.
Unless Starmer resigns or meets his maker, it takes 20% of Labour MPs to nominate a candidate against him, which then goes to a membership run off ballot. That's a very high bar.
In the unlikely event of such a challenge, I suspect it could only happen with a candidate substantially to his left.
That needs 80 nominations then. That's an awful lot, especially with seven in internal exile and another Starmer hater now out of the party.
If they thought there was a chance of toppling him, they needed to stay on board, didn't they?
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Crikey!
Why don't you change your avatar, mate?
Looks a bit anachronistic and silly now.
I like it. It's a beautiful design.
You're the sad c--t who's going to be flying the Confederate Flag into the 2000s, aren't you?
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
Until somebody can prove corruption the idea SKS is in trouble is lunacy. People who have always hated SKS are wishcasting.
Unless Starmer resigns or meets his maker, it takes 20% of Labour MPs to nominate a candidate against him, which then goes to a membership run off ballot. That's a very high bar.
In the unlikely event of such a challenge, I suspect it could only happen with a candidate substantially to his left.
That needs 80 nominations then. That's an awful lot, especially with seven in internal exile and another Starmer hater now out of the party.
If they thought there was a chance of toppling him, they needed to stay on board, didn't they?
You don’t seem to understand that a leader can be toppled in multiple ways - not just formal internal rebellion
A scandal of sufficient gravity is one. Or psychological pressure so intense it leads to resignation. Or whatever it was Truss did (that was so weird I can’t quite remember)
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Crikey!
Why don't you change your avatar, mate?
Looks a bit anachronistic and silly now.
I like it. It's a beautiful design.
You're the sad c--t who's going to be flying the Confederate Flag into the 2000s, aren't you?
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
Roger. Who is wrong about everything.
All the time.
He’s good at Oscar predix. Otherwise, yes: relentlessly and unfathomably wrong
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Crikey!
Why don't you change your avatar, mate?
Looks a bit anachronistic and silly now.
I like it. It's a beautiful design.
You're the sad c--t who's going to be flying the Confederate Flag into the 2000s, aren't you?
I'd like to thank the Tories for taking the heat off Labour. With the calibre of candidates on offer, I suspect SKS can't believe his luck.
Line from yesterday's Times:
There’s a Blair-era quip that is gaining new currency at present. “You go to Labour conference and wonder why you voted Labour. Then you arrive at Tory conference and remember.”
A Brazilian friend of mine who is being messed around about his visa said something very similar recently: "I deal with the government here and wonder why I moved. Then I go back home and remember".
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.
Licence.
@Luckyguy1983 People don't constantly need their (or is it there or they're) spelling and grammar checked by you (it is repetitive and we knew what was meant) and if you do you might find people starting doing the same to you
Eg a few days ago you typed '12 boar' but nobody bothered to correct you because we understood it to be a typo and knew what you meant.
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.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
Roger. Who is wrong about everything.
All the time.
He’s good at Oscar predix. Otherwise, yes: relentlessly and unfathomably wrong
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
In a parallel universe…
You don’t need to start your posts like that; regular readers take it as read….
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
Roger. Who is wrong about everything.
All the time.
He’s good at Oscar predix. Otherwise, yes: relentlessly and unfathomably wrong
'The wife of Tory leadership frontrunner Robert Jenrick advised oligarchs sanctioned in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we can reveal.'
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.
Licence.
@Luckyguy1983 People don't constantly need their (or is it there or they're) spelling and grammar checked by you (it is repetitive and we knew what was meant) and if you do you might find people starting doing the same to you
Eg a few days ago you typed '12 boar' but nobody bothered to correct you because we understood it to be a typo and knew what you meant.
The 12 boar is for when you get 30-50 feral hogs running into your yard...
I see that many Alpine ski resorts have their winter snow already, remarkably early this year. Indeed the September hiking season in many Alpine areas was effectively cancelled this year.
The Labour government is wildly unpopular already. And this is BEFORE they do any of the tough economic stuff
I can't say I've been impressed with Starmer thus far. However I am deeply reluctant to go after him even if he has been hypocritical in his statements. If he were to step down as PM who exactly would replace him? As a former DPP he does have a degree of credibility that much of the Labour front bench lacks. We are going through a very shaky period internationally particularly with the US election coming up. Do we really need another Westminster psychodrama?
As for all the questions around Lord Alli, it is unclear where the corruption is. If he has chosen to make donations because he wants to help the Labour party what is wrong with that? Some people are actually generous. This is a problem for the right. I listened to a discussion recently in which young patriotic conservatives were bemoaning the difference between donors on the left and the right in the US. Those on the left often do it because they believe in it. Those on the right are doing it because they expect something for themselves in return. It's cynicism to assume he's only doing it for personal gain. And if it is for personal gain might that not just be his ego? That he likes being a benefactor to the Prime minister?
Alli is a campaigner and advocate for LBGT rights so I doubt if any of his dosh went to Rosie Duffield!
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Crikey!
Why don't you change your avatar, mate?
Looks a bit anachronistic and silly now.
I like it. It's a beautiful design.
You're the sad c--t who's going to be flying the Confederate Flag into the 2000s, aren't you?
Grow up. And lose the treason.
You OK, fella?
Hungover I'm guessing.
If you fly the Traitor's Apron except nothing but contempt and opprobrium.
I will go back to ignoring your posts. Until you learn to grow up.
Yes, all of them. You contribute zero to this board.
Also, turns out the “sausages” speech WAS crap. Who was on here praising it? @kinabalu? @roger?
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
Roger. Who is wrong about everything.
All the time.
He’s good at Oscar predix. Otherwise, yes: relentlessly and unfathomably wrong
Yes, he's good at Oscar predictions because the judging panels are filled with people who are precisely like him.
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
Posted this yesterday -
The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
Assuming this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it, I think Tortoise are the establishment journos attempting to buy out the Observer) the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
As someone else mentioned yesterday, the final two candidates for the leadership have to stump up 150k each to CCHQ for the privilege of being in the final two.
So one single anonymous entity has bought at least 50% of Jenrick's campaign for him.
Who is this person, and to what will Jenrick owe them? At least with Lord Alli, you know who he is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, you have a fairly good idea there's a debt being paid. With Jenrick, you have no such idea.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the anonymous donor is V. Putin, but it does show how easily a malicious state actor could anonymously buy the leader of the opposition off for the princely sum of... considerably less than some people on PB make in a year. In fact, some of the richer punters here could have a whip round and we could own the leader of the opposition for approximately the same cost as a mid-range luxury sedan. And nobody would ever know. I mean, if Jenrick suddenly comes out in favour of banning pineapple on pizza, we'll know... but nobody else would.
Then there's the wider issue that it completely blunts the Conservatives' ability to attack Labour on sleaze. Our guy took 30k off Lord Alli for clothes? Yeah well, your guy was bought and paid for by an anonymous shell company in the British Virgin Islands. The optics, as they say, are terrible.
From a betting perspective, this could be a very good time to back Kemi, assuming enough MPs or members see Jenrick as a busted flush. Considering his role in the Richard Desmond affair, it suggests a pattern of very poor judgement at the very least.
Rather a long screed about how terrible a pick Jenrick would be - rattled?
'The wife of Tory leadership frontrunner Robert Jenrick advised oligarchs sanctioned in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we can reveal.'
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Crikey!
Why don't you change your avatar, mate?
Looks a bit anachronistic and silly now.
I like it. It's a beautiful design.
You're the sad c--t who's going to be flying the Confederate Flag into the 2000s, aren't you?
Grow up. And lose the treason.
You OK, fella?
Hungover I'm guessing.
If you fly the Traitor's Apron except nothing but contempt and opprobrium.
I will go back to ignoring your posts. Until you learn to grow up.
Yes, all of them. You contribute zero to this board.
You make me sick.
@Casino_Royale old pal, you’re in one of THOSE moods. Have a cup of tea
'The wife of Tory leadership frontrunner Robert Jenrick advised oligarchs sanctioned in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we can reveal.'
I'm liking him more and more. Hopefully he will lead a Government that attracts wealth, rather than repels it.
Some policy from Jenrick too 'We need to free British workers from the reams of bureaucracy that get in the way.
There is no reason for small businesses or sole traders to be saddled with the same regulation as big corporations with huge back-office teams.
We need a tax system that rewards risk-takers, not punishes them. We should take advantage of our Brexit freedoms and change the VAT thresholds so that small businesses can keep and invest more of the money they make.
We should increase the thresholds to £100,000, as recommended by the Federation of Small Businesses, which would allow tens of thousands of businesses to have an additional untaxed turnover of £10,000.
That would allow them to hire more staff and invest in equipment that boosts our productivity.
The state does have an important role to play in all of this. But we need a small state that works, not a big state that fails.
So instead of the taxpayer subsidising low-value degrees, we should be funding the real skills of the future.
That’s why I am calling to redirect funding away from the worst performing 10 per cent of universities towards the biggest expansion in technical colleges and apprenticeships in a generation.
We should never again be in the position where we are reliant on foreign labour for brickies, plumbers and welders that help make this country what it is.
These are important and well-paid jobs that Brits should be doing.
And we need an energy policy that prioritises reliably cheap energy. Since 2000 our electricity prices have trebled. That has crippled British industry and tipped many businesses over the edge.
It means a fundamentally different energy policy where we are pragmatic about reaching net zero. There are no prizes for reaching net zero first.
I refuse to pursue net zero off the backs of working people. Instead of throwing more money at expensive renewables, we need a baseload of reliable energy from nuclear and gas that keeps bills lower for businesses and consumers.'
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.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
'The wife of Tory leadership frontrunner Robert Jenrick advised oligarchs sanctioned in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we can reveal.'
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.
Licence.
@Luckyguy1983 People don't constantly need their (or is it there or they're) spelling and grammar checked by you (it is repetitive and we knew what was meant) and if you do you might find people starting doing the same to you
Eg a few days ago you typed '12 boar' but nobody bothered to correct you because we understood it to be a typo and knew what you meant.
The 12 boar is for when you get 30-50 feral hogs running into your yard...
I am very happy to have my spelling corrected on here - it would have been helpful if you'd picked me up on that, humorously or otherwise, and thus prevented me doing it again.
Needless to say, I'll carry on posting as I see fit, and you're welcome to do the same.
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
Posted this yesterday -
The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
Assuming this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it, I think Tortoise are the establishment journos attempting to buy out the Observer) the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
As someone else mentioned yesterday, the final two candidates for the leadership have to stump up 150k each to CCHQ for the privilege of being in the final two.
So one single anonymous entity has bought at least 50% of Jenrick's campaign for him.
Who is this person, and to what will Jenrick owe them? At least with Lord Alli, you know who he is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, you have a fairly good idea there's a debt being paid. With Jenrick, you have no such idea.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the anonymous donor is V. Putin, but it does show how easily a malicious state actor could anonymously buy the leader of the opposition off for the princely sum of... considerably less than some people on PB make in a year. In fact, some of the richer punters here could have a whip round and we could own the leader of the opposition for approximately the same cost as a mid-range luxury sedan. And nobody would ever know. I mean, if Jenrick suddenly comes out in favour of banning pineapple on pizza, we'll know... but nobody else would.
Then there's the wider issue that it completely blunts the Conservatives' ability to attack Labour on sleaze. Our guy took 30k off Lord Alli for clothes? Yeah well, your guy was bought and paid for by an anonymous shell company in the British Virgin Islands. The optics, as they say, are terrible.
From a betting perspective, this could be a very good time to back Kemi, assuming enough MPs or members see Jenrick as a busted flush. Considering his role in the Richard Desmond affair, it suggests a pattern of very poor judgement at the very least.
Rather a long screed about how terrible a pick Jenrick would be - rattled?
I've simply loathed the man since his time as Secretary of State for Housing. Compare and contrast him with Gove, who was excellent in the role.
I'd quite like a Conservative Party I feel comfortable voting for again. I would never in a million years vote for a party led by Jenrick.
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
Posted this yesterday -
The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
Assuming this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it, I think Tortoise are the establishment journos attempting to buy out the Observer) the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
As someone else mentioned yesterday, the final two candidates for the leadership have to stump up 150k each to CCHQ for the privilege of being in the final two.
So one single anonymous entity has bought at least 50% of Jenrick's campaign for him.
Who is this person, and to what will Jenrick owe them? At least with Lord Alli, you know who he is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, you have a fairly good idea there's a debt being paid. With Jenrick, you have no such idea.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the anonymous donor is V. Putin, but it does show how easily a malicious state actor could anonymously buy the leader of the opposition off for the princely sum of... considerably less than some people on PB make in a year. In fact, some of the richer punters here could have a whip round and we could own the leader of the opposition for approximately the same cost as a mid-range luxury sedan. And nobody would ever know. I mean, if Jenrick suddenly comes out in favour of banning pineapple on pizza, we'll know... but nobody else would.
Then there's the wider issue that it completely blunts the Conservatives' ability to attack Labour on sleaze. Our guy took 30k off Lord Alli for clothes? Yeah well, your guy was bought and paid for by an anonymous shell company in the British Virgin Islands. The optics, as they say, are terrible.
From a betting perspective, this could be a very good time to back Kemi, assuming enough MPs or members see Jenrick as a busted flush. Considering his role in the Richard Desmond affair, it suggests a pattern of very poor judgement at the very least.
Rather a long screed about how terrible a pick Jenrick would be - rattled?
I've simply loathed the man since his time as Secretary of State for Housing. Compare and contrast him with Gove, who was excellent in the role.
I'd quite like a Conservative Party I feel comfortable voting for again. I would never in a million years vote for a party led by Jenrick.
I have a similar level of disapprobation toward Gove. I considered cancelling my Speccie subscription in the light of his new gig, but I'm giving him a chance. And if, by God-awful twist of fate, he became leader of the Tory Party, I wouldn't dismiss the idea of voting for him entirely if he had the right policies and I felt it there was a reasonable chance he'd deliver some of them. I would only be squandering my own vote by doing so.
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
Posted this yesterday -
The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
Assuming this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it, I think Tortoise are the establishment journos attempting to buy out the Observer) the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
As someone else mentioned yesterday, the final two candidates for the leadership have to stump up 150k each to CCHQ for the privilege of being in the final two.
So one single anonymous entity has bought at least 50% of Jenrick's campaign for him.
Who is this person, and to what will Jenrick owe them? At least with Lord Alli, you know who he is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, you have a fairly good idea there's a debt being paid. With Jenrick, you have no such idea.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the anonymous donor is V. Putin, but it does show how easily a malicious state actor could anonymously buy the leader of the opposition off for the princely sum of... considerably less than some people on PB make in a year. In fact, some of the richer punters here could have a whip round and we could own the leader of the opposition for approximately the same cost as a mid-range luxury sedan. And nobody would ever know. I mean, if Jenrick suddenly comes out in favour of banning pineapple on pizza, we'll know... but nobody else would.
Then there's the wider issue that it completely blunts the Conservatives' ability to attack Labour on sleaze. Our guy took 30k off Lord Alli for clothes? Yeah well, your guy was bought and paid for by an anonymous shell company in the British Virgin Islands. The optics, as they say, are terrible.
From a betting perspective, this could be a very good time to back Kemi, assuming enough MPs or members see Jenrick as a busted flush. Considering his role in the Richard Desmond affair, it suggests a pattern of very poor judgement at the very least.
Rather a long screed about how terrible a pick Jenrick would be - rattled?
I've simply loathed the man since his time as Secretary of State for Housing. Compare and contrast him with Gove, who was excellent in the role.
I'd quite like a Conservative Party I feel comfortable voting for again. I would never in a million years vote for a party led by Jenrick.
I have a similar level of disapprobation toward Gove. I considered cancelling my Speccie subscription in the light of his new gig, but I'm giving him a chance. And if, by God-awful twist of fate, he became leader of the Tory Party, I wouldn't dismiss the idea of voting for him entirely if he had the right policies and I felt it there was a reasonable chance he'd deliver some of them. I would only be squandering my own vote by doing so.
It feels like Jenrick has shown poor judgement on numerous occasions, and that should set alarm bells ringing. I'd add to the pile him claiming 100k in expenses for his third house, painting over that mural, and breaking lockdown (was never a fan of lockdowns, but still poor judgement on his part).
On the basis of his repeated poor judgement, I expect him to be a pretty easy candidate for Labour to beat in 2029, even if he says the right things on business, growth, and tax. Especially if, say, it's sleaze that is the hallmark of the current lot, rather than, say, a failing economy. Which, cyclically, might be in a better place in '29 than it is now.
Not saying I'd pick Gove as leader either, mind...
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.
But surely if their polls are shite then the contribution isn’t worth anything…
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
Posted this yesterday -
The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
Assuming this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it, I think Tortoise are the establishment journos attempting to buy out the Observer) the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
As someone else mentioned yesterday, the final two candidates for the leadership have to stump up 150k each to CCHQ for the privilege of being in the final two.
So one single anonymous entity has bought at least 50% of Jenrick's campaign for him.
Who is this person, and to what will Jenrick owe them? At least with Lord Alli, you know who he is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, you have a fairly good idea there's a debt being paid. With Jenrick, you have no such idea.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the anonymous donor is V. Putin, but it does show how easily a malicious state actor could anonymously buy the leader of the opposition off for the princely sum of... considerably less than some people on PB make in a year. In fact, some of the richer punters here could have a whip round and we could own the leader of the opposition for approximately the same cost as a mid-range luxury sedan. And nobody would ever know. I mean, if Jenrick suddenly comes out in favour of banning pineapple on pizza, we'll know... but nobody else would.
Then there's the wider issue that it completely blunts the Conservatives' ability to attack Labour on sleaze. Our guy took 30k off Lord Alli for clothes? Yeah well, your guy was bought and paid for by an anonymous shell company in the British Virgin Islands. The optics, as they say, are terrible.
From a betting perspective, this could be a very good time to back Kemi, assuming enough MPs or members see Jenrick as a busted flush. Considering his role in the Richard Desmond affair, it suggests a pattern of very poor judgement at the very least.
Rather a long screed about how terrible a pick Jenrick would be - rattled?
I've simply loathed the man since his time as Secretary of State for Housing. Compare and contrast him with Gove, who was excellent in the role.
I'd quite like a Conservative Party I feel comfortable voting for again. I would never in a million years vote for a party led by Jenrick.
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.....
If they had withheld the vaccine from us there could have been an argument that the army should have gone to collect it in person. Not an invasion so much as an extraction operation.
The Labour government is wildly unpopular already. And this is BEFORE they do any of the tough economic stuff
Starmer getting dressed and housed by Ali makes him look bought and paid for. Forget the legalities (I'm certain the lawyer Starmer didn't break any rules), he just looks weak and a skinflint. It's time freebies to MPs were better regulated.
Why are they getting *any* personal gifts at all?
Outside of their official role, or constituency, set a limit (say £100 or £200) to allow for the occasional dinner or whatever
No suits, glasses, flats (use of), holidays or birthday parties
Comments
And the anti-Sue Gray stuff seems to be coming from civil servants and perhaps SpAds rather than MPs.
Looks a bit anachronistic and silly now.
White dot on the far bank is a stork or heron, watching the Carolina drift wood going by.
Site of the earliest surviving British settlements in the Americas. And a strange place they must have found it.
None of my lads like mainstream sports, and my youngest and middle lad don't even own TVs. They don't live their lives governed by what's on the telly.
I'm not suggesting that this isn't a minor disaster for Starmer in terms of broader public perception. But amongst Labour MPs, I think it will be like Johnson - if he continues to collect lots of freebies then he will be in serious touble, for the moment he's fine.
Here’s the Guardian/Observer this morning:
“Keir Starmer’s personal ratings dropped further during his first Labour conference as prime minister, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
While party leaders hope for a conference bounce as a result of wall-to-wall media coverage, Starmer suffered the reverse effect, as his ratings plunged to their lowest ever level, and well below those of Rishi Sunak.”
The polls themselves are bad enough, but check the tone of voice. They are positively gleeful at Starmer’s suffering. They loathe him. This will continue
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/28/keir-starmer-hits-new-low-in-personal-popularity-ratings
“Almost twice as many people (34%) thought Starmer made a bad speech last Tuesday as thought it was a good one (19%); 46% said they did not have an opinion.
Only 20% of voters think Labour has been good at providing hope and optimism following its landslide general election victory, against 56% who think it is has done badly in this respect.
And despite promising to lead a “government of service” and rebuild faith in politics, only 17% of people think it is doing well in this regard, against 58% who think it is doing badly.”
But mentioning it as a counterpoint is also missing an important point about the Alli mess. As far as I'm aware, this fellow has only donated to Jenrick. He, and a few people about him, are the only people he has (potentially) bought influence over.
Alli has donated to many senior figures within Labour. Any influence he may have wished to exploit are much wider within Labour.
Forget the legalities (I'm certain the lawyer Starmer didn't break any rules), he just looks weak and a skinflint.
It's time freebies to MPs were better regulated.
The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/09/20/robert-jenricks-top-donor-received-loan-from-untraceable-bvi-firm/
Assuming this is true (and I have no reason to doubt it, I think Tortoise are the establishment journos attempting to buy out the Observer) the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
As someone else mentioned yesterday, the final two candidates for the leadership have to stump up 150k each to CCHQ for the privilege of being in the final two.
So one single anonymous entity has bought at least 50% of Jenrick's campaign for him.
Who is this person, and to what will Jenrick owe them? At least with Lord Alli, you know who he is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, you have a fairly good idea there's a debt being paid. With Jenrick, you have no such idea.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the anonymous donor is V. Putin, but it does show how easily a malicious state actor could anonymously buy the leader of the opposition off for the princely sum of... considerably less than some people on PB make in a year. In fact, some of the richer punters here could have a whip round and we could own the leader of the opposition for approximately the same cost as a mid-range luxury sedan. And nobody would ever know. I mean, if Jenrick suddenly comes out in favour of banning pineapple on pizza, we'll know... but nobody else would.
Then there's the wider issue that it completely blunts the Conservatives' ability to attack Labour on sleaze. Our guy took 30k off Lord Alli for clothes? Yeah well, your guy was bought and paid for by an anonymous shell company in the British Virgin Islands. The optics, as they say, are terrible.
From a betting perspective, this could be a very good time to back Kemi, assuming enough MPs or members see Jenrick as a busted flush. Considering his role in the Richard Desmond affair, it suggests a pattern of very poor judgement at the very least.
@KemiBadenoch suggests statutory maternity pay is "excessive".
https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1840350530977079453
I'd like to thank the Tories for taking the heat off Labour. With the calibre of candidates on offer, I suspect SKS can't believe his luck.
People seeing what they want to see. 👍
But what I am saying is that there is no big ‘revelation’ that will destroy Starmer's hegemony. TwiX's fireworks will be damp squibs.
As for all the questions around Lord Alli, it is unclear where the corruption is. If he has chosen to make donations because he wants to help the Labour party what is wrong with that? Some people are actually generous. This is a problem for the right. I listened to a discussion recently in which young patriotic conservatives were bemoaning the difference between donors on the left and the right in the US. Those on the left often do it because they believe in it. Those on the right are doing it because they expect something for themselves in return. It's cynicism to assume he's only doing it for personal gain. And if it is for personal gain might that not just be his ego? That he likes being a benefactor to the Prime minister?
Rishi would now be odds on to be Tory leader and Leader of the Opposition and with an excellent chance of beating an already unpopular Starmer government at the next general election. Instead, because of his ego demanding he should instantly be PM and lack of political instinct (shown by calling an early election too rather than wait for immigration to fall with Rwanda and tighter salary requirements for visas and Farage to be in the US), by knifing Boris he will go down in history as the worst Tory leader in history in terms of seats won and voteshare at a GE.
Even if he can console himself with his 3/4 of a billion dollars family net worth in their California beachfront mansion it will still not be No 10
However Jenrick (or Badenoch) looks like being this year's Ed Miliband or William Hague, much to the incumbent PM's relief
There’s a Blair-era quip that is gaining new currency at present. “You go to Labour conference and wonder why you voted Labour. Then you arrive at Tory conference and remember.”
In the unlikely event of such a challenge, I suspect it could only happen with a candidate substantially to his left.
32k for work clothes? A couple of grand for specs? Anyone sane would ask why Ali loves spending money on Labour politicians.
Anyone sane would also ask why we tolerate any politicians from any party accepting thousands of pounds from donors.
It needs to stop.
And Boris would likely have been ousted by the Privileges Committee a few weeks later in any case.
Better starting points for alternate histories might be: Cameron waiting for an agreed Brexit position for the referendum; Boris replacing Cameron in 2016 rather than Theresa May (he was favourite before Gove defected); Liz Truss not imploding.
If they thought there was a chance of toppling him, they needed to stay on board, didn't they?
Grow up. And lose the treason.
All the time.
A scandal of sufficient gravity is one. Or psychological pressure so intense it leads to resignation. Or whatever it was Truss did (that was so weird I can’t quite remember)
Jenrick can probably so a bit of both but has very little integrity, and clearly isn't a nice person.
What a choice.
One minute ago.
Already there are about 500 views and at least 10 "first" comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwP727sAxg
Eg a few days ago you typed '12 boar' but nobody bothered to correct you because we understood it to be a typo and knew what you meant.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/30733879/robert-jenrick-white-van-tax/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-leadership-favourite-robert-jenricks-33774378
It does explain why Robert Jenrick is a [moderated] though, every white van driver is a [moderated.]
I will go back to ignoring your posts. Until you learn to grow up.
Yes, all of them. You contribute zero to this board.
You make me sick.
Badenoch at 0900: Women, know your place!
In that sense, he has his uses.
Grandparents are where it is at.
Rival camp responding to Badenoch maternity pay comments to @KateEMcCann this morning:
“This is Kemi’s Andrea Leadsom moment.”
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1840373761389781142
There is no reason for small businesses or sole traders to be saddled with the same regulation as big corporations with huge back-office teams.
We need a tax system that rewards risk-takers, not punishes them. We should take advantage of our Brexit freedoms and change the VAT thresholds so that small businesses can keep and invest more of the money they make.
We should increase the thresholds to £100,000, as recommended by the Federation of Small Businesses, which would allow tens of thousands of businesses to have an additional untaxed turnover of £10,000.
That would allow them to hire more staff and invest in equipment that boosts our productivity.
The state does have an important role to play in all of this. But we need a small state that works, not a big state that fails.
So instead of the taxpayer subsidising low-value degrees, we should be funding the real skills of the future.
That’s why I am calling to redirect funding away from the worst performing 10 per cent of universities towards the biggest expansion in technical colleges and apprenticeships in a generation.
We should never again be in the position where we are reliant on foreign labour for brickies, plumbers and welders that help make this country what it is.
These are important and well-paid jobs that Brits should be doing.
And we need an energy policy that prioritises reliably cheap energy. Since 2000 our electricity prices have trebled. That has crippled British industry and tipped many businesses over the edge.
It means a fundamentally different energy policy where we are pragmatic about reaching net zero. There are no prizes for reaching net zero first.
I refuse to pursue net zero off the backs of working people. Instead of throwing more money at expensive renewables, we need a baseload of reliable energy from nuclear and gas that keeps bills lower for businesses and consumers.'
NEW THREAD
I was talking about someone’s suitability for holding high office. It’s almost completely irrelevant.
You can't cut the tax take without cutting entitlements.
Needless to say, I'll carry on posting as I see fit, and you're welcome to do the same.
I'd quite like a Conservative Party I feel comfortable voting for again. I would never in a million years vote for a party led by Jenrick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jko5BGhc-Ys&t=33
On the basis of his repeated poor judgement, I expect him to be a pretty easy candidate for Labour to beat in 2029, even if he says the right things on business, growth, and tax. Especially if, say, it's sleaze that is the hallmark of the current lot, rather than, say, a failing economy. Which, cyclically, might be in a better place in '29 than it is now.
Not saying I'd pick Gove as leader either, mind...
Best make one's peace with it.
Of course the PM should analyse all options.
Outside of their official role, or constituency, set a limit (say £100 or £200) to allow for the occasional dinner or whatever
No suits, glasses, flats (use of), holidays or birthday parties