The Tuchel hand wringing continues apace with the likes of Rory Smith on 5 live this morning declaring his appointment as "it's virtually cheating" Meanwhile England's cricketers attempt a series win in Pakistan guided by their New Zealand coach and South African/New Zealand born players..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
Grant is probably overdue a knighthood. Certainly deserves on more than does the ridiculous Williamson. Better actor, too.
His naughtiness with hookers probably a black mark against him.
Re Hard Talk decision. Its a classic BBC decision, its all signally to the those that influence the narrative that something that is a bit high brow has to go because horrid cuts enforced upon us, when it will cost next to nothing to film, rather than making much harder decisions.
Another issue with the likes of Hard Talk, is the Internet has taken long form interviews / podcasts and made it into a hugely popular niche. Much more than Hard Talk on at 3am on BBC News channel with nobody watching. I doubt many people below a certain age even know of the programme, but they will know of loads of podcasts that have long form conversations.
That is true of all public sector budget cuts - management always seem to cut frontline staff delivering vital services, but never, oddly, their own salaries or perks. That's why the Osborne-Cameron strategy of imposing blanket 25% cuts on government departments rather than a zero-based budget, where you start from zero and work out what you need to fulfill the vital roles, was simultaneously lazy, moronic and counter-productive.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
Apropos this: I think the typical PB regular would enjoy reading “Red Plenty” by Francis Spufford. Half novelistic, half factual history of the rise & fall of the hope that Cybernetics could transform the Soviet economy and plot a path to the glorious future.
Gavin Williamson's seat includes areas that are very close to Cannock. Useless fact.
Gavin Williamson’s seat starts 200m from my front door.
Even more useless fact.
I'm needlessly thrilled by points where three constituencies meet. I used to live 50 yards from the boundaries of Sheffields Central, Hallam and Hillsborough. Brought me joy every time I crossed the road.
Yes! One of the drawbacks of large STV constituencies is the reduced opportunity for that sort of thing.
It is something that the Americans make more of, in part because of the way their State boundaries were created before most of the settlements developed, so you have tri-State cities.
There is a Three County Park at the point at which the counties of Cork, Kerry and Limerick meet, so that might be a fun day out.
Both Pakistan opening bowlers have played for Whiston Parish Church CC in the South Yorkshire Premier Cricket League. I wonder if that's ever happened before in Test cricket.
I used to watch Littleborough in the South Lancashire league. Their list of professionals who played for them included Sir Garfield Sobers, Joel Garner, Sir Andy Roberts...
I lived in Littleborough for a while. Always worked Saturdays so had no chance, in those days, of watching cricket.
Re Hard Talk decision. Its a classic BBC decision, its all signally to the those that influence the narrative that something that is a bit high brow has to go because horrid cuts enforced upon us, when it will cost next to nothing to film, rather than making much harder decisions.
Another issue with the likes of Hard Talk, is the Internet has taken long form interviews / podcasts and made it into a hugely popular niche. Much more than Hard Talk on at 3am on BBC News channel with nobody watching. I doubt many people below a certain age even know of the programme, but they will know of loads of podcasts that have long form conversations.
That is true of all public sector budget cuts - management always seem to cut frontline staff delivering vital services, but never, oddly, their own salaries or perks. That's why the Osborne-Cameron strategy of imposing blanket 25% cuts on government departments rather than a zero-based budget, where you start from zero and work out what you need to fulfill the vital roles, was simultaneously lazy, moronic and counter-productive.
The only person I can remember promoting zero-based budgeting as a political idea in the last decade was Carly Fiorina.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Many of the biggest YouTubers, like Tom Scott, would probably have been TV presenters on BBC programmes like Tomorrow's World if they'd been around a couple of decades earlier.
Now it seems like every documentary has to be presented by a celebrity or from about 2-3 fav academics.
From the opinion: "As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddies and mangled the meaning of the word "shall" in out business. To users of common parlance, "shall" connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!" https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846212255395741791
Both Pakistan opening bowlers have played for Whiston Parish Church CC in the South Yorkshire Premier Cricket League. I wonder if that's ever happened before in Test cricket.
I used to watch Littleborough in the South Lancashire league. Their list of professionals who played for them included Sir Garfield Sobers, Joel Garner, Sir Andy Roberts...
I lived in Littleborough for a while. Always worked Saturdays so had no chance, in those days, of watching cricket.
Lovely little ground. Some fabulous banter from the old boys dotted around the boundary. Funnier than most of what is served up as comedy today.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Isn't this what (used to be) called "the long tail"? A long list of extreme nerds going into minute detail about a niche subject in such a way as to be understood by the layman. Goodness knows I know a lot more about, say, tanks than I did twenty years ago. And there's all sorts of weird stuff. I've just listened to a ten-minute explainer on Juche https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWP6ErC8-tw . I wouldn't have known how in the past, but now I do.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Isn't this what (used to be) called "the long tail"? A long list of extreme nerds going into minute detail about a niche subject in such a way as to be understood by the layman. Goodness knows I know a lot more about, say, tanks than I did twenty years ago. And there's all sorts of weird stuff. I've just listened to a ten-minute explainer on Juche https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWP6ErC8-tw . I wouldn't have known how in the past, but now I do.
Yes and no. There is definitely that on YouTube, but there are channels that do what say the BBC used to do, but better e.g. Veritasium
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
Apropos this: I think the typical PB regular would enjoy reading “Red Plenty” by Francis Spufford. Half novelistic, half factual history of the rise & fall of the hope that Cybernetics could transform the Soviet economy and plot a path to the glorious future.
Yes, that book is a good read and a real insight, told through verious personal stories, into how Russia slipped from hopeful proto-democracy into a gangster state. The ignorance and innocence of the western economic advisers, mostly from the US, about how the changes they recommended would turn out, is staggering. It underlines that democracy needs other pillars, particularly an independent judiciary and some independence of media, to take root and survive.
From the opinion: "As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddies and mangled the meaning of the word "shall" in out business. To users of common parlance, "shall" connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!" https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846212255395741791
This is good news I think? GOP Trump cult members can't mess with Georgia certification? Or does this now go to Trump's Supreme Court?
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Many of the biggest YouTubers, like Tom Scott, would probably have been TV presenters on BBC programmes like Tomorrow's World if they'd been around a couple of decades earlier.
Scott, as a York Uni boy, would probably have found it hard to break into the southern Oxbridge clique at the BBC. Youtube gave him a chance it's unlikely the BBC ever would...
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Lol, that post is hilarious. The Conservative Party, like any other does not need to be completely rooted in the past. The only fundamental is resisting change for the sake of change. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion the Conservatives should never have voted for any constitutional change at all. You also don't seem to know your own party's history. It is a liberal party at its core and has regularly reinvented itself. I would say that TSE seems much more of a Conservative than you are. You have turned into a Johnson worshiping parody of a Tory, with views that seem more aligned to MAGA than Conservatism.
TSE is a Liberal Whig NOT a Tory.
The fact the Tory party had some free market liberals join it to create today's Conservative party does not change that
I bet you would have opposed women getting the vote.
He'd have split himself in two over repealing the Corn Laws...
At least the Corn Laws protected the landed interest and British farmers and our core vote, Disraeli was a great Tory who initially opposed Peel's repeal of the Corn Laws. Of course Peel and his Peelites (who TSE would no doubt have supported) left the Tories to form the Liberals with the Whigs and some Radicals.
Conservatives have not always been pro free trade and often supported tariffs and proectionism like Trump does now, indeed some Brexiteers wanted to restrict EU imports as much as EU immigrationb
I tried to use a black cab for the first time in about 3 years yesterday and had the clichéd "nah, I don't want to do it mate - not going that way" response. When I asked how long it would take he then described the impact on him and his schedule for the rest of the day rather than mine, so I gave up and went back to the delayed tube.
I just won't bother again, or just use Uber.
It really does remind you how utterly self-serving Unions can be, and, yes, I put cabbies in that category despite their Reformy views.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Isn't this what (used to be) called "the long tail"? A long list of extreme nerds going into minute detail about a niche subject in such a way as to be understood by the layman. Goodness knows I know a lot more about, say, tanks than I did twenty years ago. And there's all sorts of weird stuff. I've just listened to a ten-minute explainer on Juche https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWP6ErC8-tw . I wouldn't have known how in the past, but now I do.
Yes and no. There is definitely that on YouTube, but there are channels that do what say the BBC used to do, but better e.g. Veritasium
It also depends what you mean by Conservative; I would not call the current incarnation of the Conservative Party, "Conservative".
The last Bishop known to me I would know to call Conservative was probably Rt Rev Bill Westwood, Bishop of Peterborough 1984-1995. He was described as Thatcherite at the time iirc. But there may be approx 200 Bishops appointed since 1990, so it is a big field.
It would very much depend on what the policy was - I'm sure you can find many policies even under the 2019-2024 Government that some would support. There's always a lot that is non-partisan.
I think Mrs Thatcher upended the "suggest two and the PM will appoint the first in the list" system that used to exist when she appointed George Carey as ABC, who was second on the list. He was a bit reactionary in his later years - but again on particular questions mainly around some areas of social conservatism, rather than purely on tribal loyalty.
Richard Chartres was a conservative Bishop of London relatively recently.
Nazir Ali another conservative as Bishop of Rochester even if has now gone to Rome.
Some conservative evangelical Bishops too and the Bishops are like most conservatives now opposed to euthanasia on demand (although Carey ironically supports it)
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
Apropos this: I think the typical PB regular would enjoy reading “Red Plenty” by Francis Spufford. Half novelistic, half factual history of the rise & fall of the hope that Cybernetics could transform the Soviet economy and plot a path to the glorious future.
Yes, that book is a good read and a real insight, told through verious personal stories, into how Russia slipped from hopeful proto-democracy into a gangster state. The ignorance and innocence of the western economic advisers, mostly from the US, about how the changes they recommended would turn out, is staggering. It underlines that democracy needs other pillars, particularly an independent judiciary and some independence of media, to take root and survive.
My suggestion at the time, was that the West should pay all police officers, judges etc a flat, extra $100,000 each. Which would have stopped the crime carnival dead...
From the opinion: "As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddies and mangled the meaning of the word "shall" in out business. To users of common parlance, "shall" connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!" https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846212255395741791
This is good news I think? GOP Trump cult members can't mess with Georgia certification? Or does this now go to Trump's Supreme Court?
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Many of the biggest YouTubers, like Tom Scott, would probably have been TV presenters on BBC programmes like Tomorrow's World if they'd been around a couple of decades earlier.
Scott, as a York Uni boy, would probably have found it hard to break into the southern Oxbridge clique at the BBC. Youtube gave him a chance it's unlikely the BBC ever would...
Technical Difficulties (him and his uni mates) should get a show...The wikipedia game they play is very good.
Both Pakistan opening bowlers have played for Whiston Parish Church CC in the South Yorkshire Premier Cricket League. I wonder if that's ever happened before in Test cricket.
I used to watch Littleborough in the South Lancashire league. Their list of professionals who played for them included Sir Garfield Sobers, Joel Garner, Sir Andy Roberts...
I lived in Littleborough for a while. Always worked Saturdays so had no chance, in those days, of watching cricket.
Lovely little ground. Some fabulous banter from the old boys dotted around the boundary. Funnier than most of what is served up as comedy today.
Think father-in-law used to go there occasionally, although as an ex-(pre-war) Rochdale player he normally watched Central Lancashire League games post-war.
From the opinion: "As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddies and mangled the meaning of the word "shall" in out business. To users of common parlance, "shall" connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!" https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846212255395741791
Video footage of Judge McBurney delivering his opinion
From the opinion: "As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddies and mangled the meaning of the word "shall" in out business. To users of common parlance, "shall" connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!" https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846212255395741791
This is good news I think? GOP Trump cult members can't mess with Georgia certification? Or does this now go to Trump's Supreme Court?
It also depends what you mean by Conservative; I would not call the current incarnation of the Conservative Party, "Conservative".
The last Bishop known to me I would know to call Conservative was probably Rt Rev Bill Westwood, Bishop of Peterborough 1984-1995. He was described as Thatcherite at the time iirc. But there may be approx 200 Bishops appointed since 1990, so it is a big field.
It would very much depend on what the policy was - I'm sure you can find many policies even under the 2019-2024 Government that some would support. There's always a lot that is non-partisan.
I think Mrs Thatcher upended the "suggest two and the PM will appoint the first in the list" system that used to exist when she appointed George Carey as ABC, who was second on the list. He was a bit reactionary in his later years - but again on particular questions mainly around some areas of social conservatism, rather than purely on tribal loyalty.
Richard Chartres was a conservative Bishop of London relatively recently.
Nazir Ali another conservative as Bishop of Rochester even if has now gone to Rome.
Some conservative evangelical Bishops too and the Bishops are like most conservatives now opposed to euthanasia on demand (although Carey ironically supports it)
From the opinion: "As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddies and mangled the meaning of the word "shall" in out business. To users of common parlance, "shall" connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!" https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846212255395741791
This is good news I think? GOP Trump cult members can't mess with Georgia certification? Or does this now go to Trump's Supreme Court?
It would go first through the Georgia Court system upto their Supreme Court but there’s no way they’ll overturn Georgia law . The issue of the hand counting could end up there but the local election board have overstepped their authority as you’re not supposed to change rules within 90 days of an election .
It also depends what you mean by Conservative; I would not call the current incarnation of the Conservative Party, "Conservative".
The last Bishop known to me I would know to call Conservative was probably Rt Rev Bill Westwood, Bishop of Peterborough 1984-1995. He was described as Thatcherite at the time iirc. But there may be approx 200 Bishops appointed since 1990, so it is a big field.
It would very much depend on what the policy was - I'm sure you can find many policies even under the 2019-2024 Government that some would support. There's always a lot that is non-partisan.
I think Mrs Thatcher upended the "suggest two and the PM will appoint the first in the list" system that used to exist when she appointed George Carey as ABC, who was second on the list. He was a bit reactionary in his later years - but again on particular questions mainly around some areas of social conservatism, rather than purely on tribal loyalty.
Richard Chartres was a conservative Bishop of London relatively recently.
Nazir Ali another conservative as Bishop of Rochester even if has now gone to Rome.
Some conservative evangelical Bishops too and the Bishops are like most conservatives now opposed to euthanasia on demand (although Carey ironically supports it)
The former Bishop of Fulham, the one who led the Ordinariate, made Farage look like Caroline Lucas.
Re Hard Talk decision. Its a classic BBC decision, its all signally to the those that influence the narrative that something that is a bit high brow has to go because horrid cuts enforced upon us, when it will cost next to nothing to film, rather than making much harder decisions.
Another issue with the likes of Hard Talk, is the Internet has taken long form interviews / podcasts and made it into a hugely popular niche. Much more than Hard Talk on at 3am on BBC News channel with nobody watching. I doubt many people below a certain age even know of the programme, but they will know of loads of podcasts that have long form conversations.
That is true of all public sector budget cuts - management always seem to cut frontline staff delivering vital services, but never, oddly, their own salaries or perks. That's why the Osborne-Cameron strategy of imposing blanket 25% cuts on government departments rather than a zero-based budget, where you start from zero and work out what you need to fulfill the vital roles, was simultaneously lazy, moronic and counter-productive.
The only person I can remember promoting zero-based budgeting as a political idea in the last decade was Carly Fiorina.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Many of the biggest YouTubers, like Tom Scott, would probably have been TV presenters on BBC programmes like Tomorrow's World if they'd been around a couple of decades earlier.
Scott, as a York Uni boy, would probably have found it hard to break into the southern Oxbridge clique at the BBC. Youtube gave him a chance it's unlikely the BBC ever would...
Technical Difficulties (him and his uni mates) should get a show...The wikipedia game they play is very good.
In general I'd prefer it if most YouTubers stuck to what they do well. The Slow Mo Guys - for instance - produce better content as free agents than under BigCo. command.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
Apropos this: I think the typical PB regular would enjoy reading “Red Plenty” by Francis Spufford. Half novelistic, half factual history of the rise & fall of the hope that Cybernetics could transform the Soviet economy and plot a path to the glorious future.
Yes, that book is a good read and a real insight, told through verious personal stories, into how Russia slipped from hopeful proto-democracy into a gangster state. The ignorance and innocence of the western economic advisers, mostly from the US, about how the changes they recommended would turn out, is staggering. It underlines that democracy needs other pillars, particularly an independent judiciary and some independence of media, to take root and survive.
Correction - the book I was thinking of is The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia, by Geshen.
I have read Red Plenty also, which is also a good read, a story of Russia under communism and the dream based on central planning.
Gavin Williamson's seat includes areas that are very close to Cannock. Useless fact.
Gavin Williamson’s seat starts 200m from my front door.
Even more useless fact.
I'm needlessly thrilled by points where three constituencies meet. I used to live 50 yards from the boundaries of Sheffields Central, Hallam and Hillsborough. Brought me joy every time I crossed the road.
Yes! One of the drawbacks of large STV constituencies is the reduced opportunity for that sort of thing.
It is something that the Americans make more of, in part because of the way their State boundaries were created before most of the settlements developed, so you have tri-State cities.
There is a Three County Park at the point at which the counties of Cork, Kerry and Limerick meet, so that might be a fun day out.
The tripoint between Hampshire, Surrey and West Sussex was about a mile from me on Hammer Lane. The boundary between Hampshire and West Sussex ran across my drive when I lived near the Haslemere/Liphook road.
Gavin Williamson's seat includes areas that are very close to Cannock. Useless fact.
Gavin Williamson’s seat starts 200m from my front door.
Even more useless fact.
I'm needlessly thrilled by points where three constituencies meet. I used to live 50 yards from the boundaries of Sheffields Central, Hallam and Hillsborough. Brought me joy every time I crossed the road.
Yes! One of the drawbacks of large STV constituencies is the reduced opportunity for that sort of thing.
It is something that the Americans make more of, in part because of the way their State boundaries were created before most of the settlements developed, so you have tri-State cities.
There is a Three County Park at the point at which the counties of Cork, Kerry and Limerick meet, so that might be a fun day out.
The tripoint between Hampshire, Surrey and West Sussex was about a mile from me on Hammer Lane. The boundary between Hampshire and West Sussex ran across my drive when I lived near the Haslemere/Liphook road.
Liphook - there’s a blast from the past and the other PB
I tried to use a black cab for the first time in about 3 years yesterday and had the clichéd "nah, I don't want to do it mate - not going that way" response. When I asked how long it would take he then described the impact on him and his schedule for the rest of the day rather than mine, so I gave up and went back to the delayed tube.
I just won't bother again, or just use Uber.
It really does remind you how utterly self-serving Unions can be, and, yes, I put cabbies in that category despite their Reformy views.
I've used the Gett app a number of times. You get a black cab who actually wants to go to the destination, no quibbles. Payment via the app, so no "card machine broken stuff".
They were recently doing a promotion, where you got x fares at a reduced price. Slightly less than Uber for the same journey.
"‘It’s social murder’ — is Canada’s assisted dying a model or a warning?
The global capital for assisted death is considering including mental illness as a legitimate reason for ending one’s life, but its euthanasia laws are fiercely criticised by human rights advocates" (£)
Re Hard Talk decision. Its a classic BBC decision, its all signally to the those that influence the narrative that something that is a bit high brow has to go because horrid cuts enforced upon us, when it will cost next to nothing to film, rather than making much harder decisions.
Another issue with the likes of Hard Talk, is the Internet has taken long form interviews / podcasts and made it into a hugely popular niche. Much more than Hard Talk on at 3am on BBC News channel with nobody watching. I doubt many people below a certain age even know of the programme, but they will know of loads of podcasts that have long form conversations.
That is true of all public sector budget cuts - management always seem to cut frontline staff delivering vital services, but never, oddly, their own salaries or perks. That's why the Osborne-Cameron strategy of imposing blanket 25% cuts on government departments rather than a zero-based budget, where you start from zero and work out what you need to fulfill the vital roles, was simultaneously lazy, moronic and counter-productive.
The only person I can remember promoting zero-based budgeting as a political idea in the last decade was Carly Fiorina.
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
I think someone with a lot of money is playing silly beggars betting on Trump for some reason. Could be an insurance bet or it could be a deliberate attempt to create a narrative. It's big market, approaching £100million, so it's an expensive strategy. Who could afford it?
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
At 4/6 vs 6/4, I loaded up spin (just for interest, not gambling purposes) expecting a clear gap in the ECV market.
Nope.
Were I gambling, I’d follow you in at 6/4. My concern would be that the odds may shift further towards trump and away from a reasonable extrapolation from the credible polls.
I tried to use a black cab for the first time in about 3 years yesterday and had the clichéd "nah, I don't want to do it mate - not going that way" response. When I asked how long it would take he then described the impact on him and his schedule for the rest of the day rather than mine, so I gave up and went back to the delayed tube.
I just won't bother again, or just use Uber.
It really does remind you how utterly self-serving Unions can be, and, yes, I put cabbies in that category despite their Reformy views.
I wonder if union members are now more likely to be Reform voters than Labour voters? Must be the case in some parts of the country/sectors given the stats on educational attainment and voting patterns.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
It's surely got to be close to his floor price with the present polls.
Even with Harris' DEI dross on the socials.
I'd be really embarrassed and cringed out by some of this stuff if I was black. My school has a BHM thing where they are teaching Year 5 and 6 how to do rap; like all black people love marijuana and rap.
It'd be like doing a piece on White people where we all love gin & tonic and Baroque music.
Re Hard Talk decision. Its a classic BBC decision, its all signally to the those that influence the narrative that something that is a bit high brow has to go because horrid cuts enforced upon us, when it will cost next to nothing to film, rather than making much harder decisions.
Another issue with the likes of Hard Talk, is the Internet has taken long form interviews / podcasts and made it into a hugely popular niche. Much more than Hard Talk on at 3am on BBC News channel with nobody watching. I doubt many people below a certain age even know of the programme, but they will know of loads of podcasts that have long form conversations.
That is true of all public sector budget cuts - management always seem to cut frontline staff delivering vital services, but never, oddly, their own salaries or perks. That's why the Osborne-Cameron strategy of imposing blanket 25% cuts on government departments rather than a zero-based budget, where you start from zero and work out what you need to fulfill the vital roles, was simultaneously lazy, moronic and counter-productive.
That's not true based on headcount, going by the NHS. Indeed, it might be the cuts to management that has caused the spike in waiting lists:
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
It's surely got to be close to his floor price with the present polls.
Even with Harris' DEI dross on the socials.
I'd be really embarrassed and cringed out by some of this stuff if I was black. My school has a BHM thing where they are teaching Year 5 and 6 how to do rap; like all black people love marijuana and rap.
It'd be like doing a piece on White people where we all love gin & tonic and Baroque music.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
It's surely got to be close to his floor price with the present polls.
Even with Harris' DEI dross on the socials.
I'd be really embarrassed and cringed out by some of this stuff if I was black. My school has a BHM thing where they are teaching Year 5 and 6 how to do rap; like all black people love marijuana and rap.
It'd be like doing a piece on White people where we all love gin & tonic and Baroque music.
You must be more woke than me, Casino - I had to google BHM!
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
I think someone with a lot of money is playing silly beggars betting on Trump for some reason. Could be an insurance bet or it could be a deliberate attempt to create a narrative. It's big market, approaching £100million, so it's an expensive strategy. Who could afford it?
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
Apropos this: I think the typical PB regular would enjoy reading “Red Plenty” by Francis Spufford. Half novelistic, half factual history of the rise & fall of the hope that Cybernetics could transform the Soviet economy and plot a path to the glorious future.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
I think the final three weeks of the campaign could be dominated by the question of Trump's mental fitness for the job. He is now getting so weird, it is surely impossible for the main stream media to stop giving him a pass? Yesterday's "town hall" descended into farce as he gave up on questions when someone was taken ill in the hall - and he swayed to his favourite music for 39 minutes.
America, do you REALLY want to give this guy the nuclear football? Worse yet, hand it to J D Vance after a few months? This SHOULD dominate the closing stages of any sane election.
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
I think someone with a lot of money is playing silly beggars betting on Trump for some reason. Could be an insurance bet or it could be a deliberate attempt to create a narrative. It's big market, approaching £100million, so it's an expensive strategy. Who could afford it?
Yes, the headline price doesn't gell with the subsidiary PV and EC markets.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
It's surely got to be close to his floor price with the present polls.
Even with Harris' DEI dross on the socials.
I'd be really embarrassed and cringed out by some of this stuff if I was black. My school has a BHM thing where they are teaching Year 5 and 6 how to do rap; like all black people love marijuana and rap.
It'd be like doing a piece on White people where we all love gin & tonic and Baroque music.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
I think the final three weeks of the campaign could be dominated by the question of Trump's mental fitness for the job. He is now getting so weird, it is surely impossible for the main stream media to stop giving him a pass? Yesterday's "town hall" descended into farce as he gave up on questions when someone was taken ill in the hall - and he swayed to his favourite music for 39 minutes.
America, do you REALLY want to give this guy the nuclear football? Worse yet, hand it to J D Vance after a few months? This SHOULD dominate the closing stages of any sane election.
Should.
Based on their debate performances Vance is actually more sane and articulate than Trump
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
It's surely got to be close to his floor price with the present polls.
Even with Harris' DEI dross on the socials.
I'd be really embarrassed and cringed out by some of this stuff if I was black. My school has a BHM thing where they are teaching Year 5 and 6 how to do rap; like all black people love marijuana and rap.
It'd be like doing a piece on White people where we all love gin & tonic and Baroque music.
I am always reminded of the classic Chris Rock bit about there are blacks and there are n####...and us black folk hate the n#### more than the white folk.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
I think the final three weeks of the campaign could be dominated by the question of Trump's mental fitness for the job. He is now getting so weird, it is surely impossible for the main stream media to stop giving him a pass? Yesterday's "town hall" descended into farce as he gave up on questions when someone was taken ill in the hall - and he swayed to his favourite music for 39 minutes.
America, do you REALLY want to give this guy the nuclear football? Worse yet, hand it to J D Vance after a few months? This SHOULD dominate the closing stages of any sane election.
Should.
There were a couple of medical emergencies at the Town Hall.
"‘It’s social murder’ — is Canada’s assisted dying a model or a warning?
The global capital for assisted death is considering including mental illness as a legitimate reason for ending one’s life, but its euthanasia laws are fiercely criticised by human rights advocates" (£)
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
Is it time for my daily rant about the state of education?
If it will cheer @Northern_Al up I’m willing to throw in a prediction of Pakistan to win by an innings…
There's quite the plunge going on Trump. 1.65 vs 2.56 Harris.
Looks a bit odd to me. Harris is 1.7 to win over 50% of the vote. No-one has ever won over 50% and lost.
Markets possibly (?) getting out of whack with each other hence opportunities for the man with an abacus and a free afternoon.
There’s still a long way to go before polling day. Several known unknowns to factor in.
Indeed. But you'd expect the markets to make sense against each other and if they don't? ... well that's fertile punting territory. You might even be able to construct a win/win.
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
I think someone with a lot of money is playing silly beggars betting on Trump for some reason. Could be an insurance bet or it could be a deliberate attempt to create a narrative. It's big market, approaching £100million, so it's an expensive strategy. Who could afford it?
Polymarket markets are settled by Uma, which makes decisions by a vote of anonymous holders of Uma tokens. If you want it to settle for Trump (or Michelle Obama for that matter) you can just buy the Uma tokens and make it settle for Trump or Michelle Obama.
The downside is that doing this will reduce the value of the Uma tokens you hold, but 1. The value of the Polymarket stakes is getting pretty high compared to the value of Uma 2. In practice crypto prices are basically random, it's not clear that the price of Uma would drop just because Uma turned out not to work 3. Uma does a load of stuff other than settling prediction markets 4. If you know you're going to make the Uma price drop you can short Uma in other markets 5. If your goal is to make people think Trump won the election, that may well be worth more than Uma
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
I think the final three weeks of the campaign could be dominated by the question of Trump's mental fitness for the job. He is now getting so weird, it is surely impossible for the main stream media to stop giving him a pass? Yesterday's "town hall" descended into farce as he gave up on questions when someone was taken ill in the hall - and he swayed to his favourite music for 39 minutes.
America, do you REALLY want to give this guy the nuclear football? Worse yet, hand it to J D Vance after a few months? This SHOULD dominate the closing stages of any sane election.
Should.
Based on their debate performances Vance is actually more sane and articulate than Trump
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Many of the biggest YouTubers, like Tom Scott, would probably have been TV presenters on BBC programmes like Tomorrow's World if they'd been around a couple of decades earlier.
Scott, as a York Uni boy, would probably have found it hard to break into the southern Oxbridge clique at the BBC. Youtube gave him a chance it's unlikely the BBC ever would...
Huw Edwards managed it as a Cardiff Uni boy, Clive Myrie went to Sussex not Oxbridge
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Many of the biggest YouTubers, like Tom Scott, would probably have been TV presenters on BBC programmes like Tomorrow's World if they'd been around a couple of decades earlier.
Scott, as a York Uni boy, would probably have found it hard to break into the southern Oxbridge clique at the BBC. Youtube gave him a chance it's unlikely the BBC ever would...
Huw Edwards managed it as a Cardiff Uni boy, Clive Myrie went to Sussex not Oxbridge
Not just the first is a great example of the sort of people the BBC should be hiring....
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
At 4/6 vs 6/4, I loaded up spin (just for interest, not gambling purposes) expecting a clear gap in the ECV market.
Nope.
Were I gambling, I’d follow you in at 6/4. My concern would be that the odds may shift further towards Trump and away from a reasonable extrapolation from the credible polls.
I've been wrong before assuming the polls will continue to go the way I want, so I'm not getting overexcited. But I've put a bit more money back on Harris, having earlier taken a bit off the table.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
I think the final three weeks of the campaign could be dominated by the question of Trump's mental fitness for the job. He is now getting so weird, it is surely impossible for the main stream media to stop giving him a pass? Yesterday's "town hall" descended into farce as he gave up on questions when someone was taken ill in the hall - and he swayed to his favourite music for 39 minutes.
America, do you REALLY want to give this guy the nuclear football? Worse yet, hand it to J D Vance after a few months? This SHOULD dominate the closing stages of any sane election.
Should.
There were a couple of medical emergencies at the Town Hall.
Two people fainted.
Quite common when cultists are in the presence of their Great Leader.
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
I think someone with a lot of money is playing silly beggars betting on Trump for some reason. Could be an insurance bet or it could be a deliberate attempt to create a narrative. It's big market, approaching £100million, so it's an expensive strategy. Who could afford it?
A single whale is distorting the Pennsylvania position on Polymarket. Rumour is it's Musk
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
What are you doing on this site ? There's been a significant shift in the odds, for no readily discernible reason. It would be exceedingly odd if people didn't discuss it.
Your characterisation of the discussion is equally odd.
Harris has to be a bet at 2.5 fixed odds..that's a pretty bent coin toss on offer..😏
Makes sense.
I really want to see, but really don’t have the time to do it as I’m not actually betting at the moment, the prices between US and international markets over short periods of time.
First of all, are there arbs available if you can get on both markets?
Then which companies are leading and which are following, if it’s always the same company leading then how much money does it take to move it, as there’s plenty of money on both sides that could be well inclined to do this etc.
I see Trump is now 1.66/1.67 on Betfair. Very tempting to lay him again at this price but I'm already deep red on Trump.
It's surely got to be close to his floor price with the present polls.
Even with Harris' DEI dross on the socials.
I'd be really embarrassed and cringed out by some of this stuff if I was black. My school has a BHM thing where they are teaching Year 5 and 6 how to do rap; like all black people love marijuana and rap.
It'd be like doing a piece on White people where we all love gin & tonic and Baroque music.
I am always reminded of the classic Chris Rock bit about there are blacks and there are n####...and us black folk hate the n#### more than the white folk.
What are you doing on this site ? There's been a significant shift in the odds, for no readily discernible reason. It would be exceedingly odd if people didn't discuss it.
Your characterisation of the discussion is equally odd.
It’s one of the biggest betting markets ever, be very odd not to discuss it.
Both Pakistan opening bowlers have played for Whiston Parish Church CC in the South Yorkshire Premier Cricket League. I wonder if that's ever happened before in Test cricket.
I used to watch Littleborough in the South Lancashire league. Their list of professionals who played for them included Sir Garfield Sobers, Joel Garner, Sir Andy Roberts...
A few years back when out and about near York I came across a village cricket match, so thought I'd watch a few overs, as you do, and took up a position on the boundary.
The first ball of the next over sailed right over the pavilion and straight through the back window of an unfortunate BMW in the car park.
"‘It’s social murder’ — is Canada’s assisted dying a model or a warning?
The global capital for assisted death is considering including mental illness as a legitimate reason for ending one’s life, but its euthanasia laws are fiercely criticised by human rights advocates" (£)
We have seen on other recent (and not so recent) social issues that professional gatekeeping is not enough because the activists and advocates are in the professions, and the internet lets everyone find everyone.
What are you doing on this site ? There's been a significant shift in the odds, for no readily discernible reason. It would be exceedingly odd if people didn't discuss it.
Your characterisation of the discussion is equally odd.
I shall probably only bet on the night of the election, as I did last time when Biden's odds drifted during the counting so I did well.
+5 poll today with Harris at 52% (+3 from previous, Marist). 6-4 looks bonkers big to me tbh. Topping up a ton on her.
I think someone with a lot of money is playing silly beggars betting on Trump for some reason. Could be an insurance bet or it could be a deliberate attempt to create a narrative. It's big market, approaching £100million, so it's an expensive strategy. Who could afford it?
A single whale is distorting the Pennsylvania position on Polymarket. Rumour is it's Musk
Could be part of the "steal" strategy? If Trump loses one source of "evidence" that the election was rigged and stolen would be - in his head at least - that he was the favourite on betting sites.
What are you doing on this site ? There's been a significant shift in the odds, for no readily discernible reason. It would be exceedingly odd if people didn't discuss it.
Your characterisation of the discussion is equally odd.
I shall probably only bet on the night of the election, as I did last time when Biden's odds drifted during the counting so I did well.
Which is fine. And probably sensible.
But I still don't get your problem with others chatting about it.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
You’ll have to write to Boris Johnson, it was he got Williamson knighted.
What are you doing on this site ? There's been a significant shift in the odds, for no readily discernible reason. It would be exceedingly odd if people didn't discuss it.
Your characterisation of the discussion is equally odd.
I shall probably only bet on the night of the election, as I did last time when Biden's odds drifted during the counting so I did well.
There were loads of “oh, Trump again, good night” comments here on the night last time, when Biden was 10/1 or thereabouts on Betfair.
Everyone seems to forget that US elections take literally weeks to count and two months to certify, nearly three months before the new President is sworn in. No-one else does this, and in the UK everyone is used to seeing the handover within 24 hours. 2010 is the only exception in my lifetime, when it still took less than a week.
Last time the postal vote favoured Biden, because in the context of the pandemic he was encouraging it whereas Trump was encouraging on-the-day voting. It’s not going to be so one-sided this time around. The chance of a Florida 2000 repeat isn’t off the charts sadly.
What are you doing on this site ? There's been a significant shift in the odds, for no readily discernible reason. It would be exceedingly odd if people didn't discuss it.
Your characterisation of the discussion is equally odd.
I shall probably only bet on the night of the election, as I did last time when Biden's odds drifted during the counting so I did well.
There were loads of “oh, Trump again, good night” comments here on the night last time, when Biden was 10/1 or thereabouts on Betfair.
Everyone seems to forget that US elections take literally weeks to count and two months to certify, nearly three months before the new President is sworn in. No-one else does this, and in the UK everyone is used to seeing the handover within 24 hours. 2010 is the only exception in my lifetime, when it still took less than a week.
We had the results PDQ as usual in 2010; it was just that the politicians took a while to sort out what was going to happen.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
You’ll have to write to Boris Johnson, it was he got Williamson knighted.
I presume what he actually said was that it was time to say good night to Gavin, and a civil servant got the wrong end of the stick.
Comments
It is something that the Americans make more of, in part because of the way their State boundaries were created before most of the settlements developed, so you have tri-State cities.
There is a Three County Park at the point at which the counties of Cork, Kerry and Limerick meet, so that might be a fun day out.
Why do you think they would know how to behave?
No election board “may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstances…”
https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846173212914102307
From the opinion:
"As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddies and mangled the meaning of the word "shall" in out business. To users of common parlance, "shall" connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!"
https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1846212255395741791
"London Underground workers to strike next month over pay, union says"
https://news.sky.com/story/london-underground-workers-to-strike-next-month-over-pay-union-says-13234456
Conservatives have not always been pro free trade and often supported tariffs and proectionism like Trump does now, indeed some Brexiteers wanted to restrict EU imports as much as EU immigrationb
I just won't bother again, or just use Uber.
It really does remind you how utterly self-serving Unions can be, and, yes, I put cabbies in that category despite their Reformy views.
Nazir Ali another conservative as Bishop of Rochester even if has now gone to Rome.
Some conservative evangelical Bishops too and the Bishops are like most conservatives now opposed to euthanasia on demand (although Carey ironically supports it)
And which of you said Pope was settling nicely?
https://youtu.be/GwmJ76VjXaE?feature=shared
Was Chartres politically conservative?
Nazir Ali .. possibly, and a good shout.
says 'Chris Briscombe I'm a Woman'
Bowled through the gate.
I have read Red Plenty also, which is also a good read, a story of Russia under communism and the dream based on central planning.
At 19:32.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023y8x
Even with Harris' DEI dross on the socials.
They were recently doing a promotion, where you got x fares at a reduced price. Slightly less than Uber for the same journey.
The global capital for assisted death is considering including mental illness as a legitimate reason for ending one’s life, but its euthanasia laws are fiercely criticised by human rights advocates" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/canada-assisted-dying-law-wm7zfnpqv
Nope.
Were I gambling, I’d follow you in at 6/4. My concern would be that the odds may shift further towards trump and away from a reasonable extrapolation from the credible polls.
It'd be like doing a piece on White people where we all love gin & tonic and Baroque music.
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1846132503066591708?t=Mfv13rOANl8SXTWEQOQ_nQ&s=19
Whole thread, including quoted real world example, is super interesting.
Looks a bit odd to me. Harris is 1.7 to win over 50% of the vote. No-one has ever won over 50% and lost.
Markets possibly (?) getting out of whack with each other hence opportunities for the man with an abacus and a free afternoon.
Though Morning Consult's latest poll shows her at +8%
America, do you REALLY want to give this guy the nuclear football? Worse yet, hand it to J D Vance after a few months? This SHOULD dominate the closing stages of any sane election.
Should.
Cannot wait for this election to be over.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/poilievre-promises-revoke-expansion-maid
The downside is that doing this will reduce the value of the Uma tokens you hold, but
1. The value of the Polymarket stakes is getting pretty high compared to the value of Uma
2. In practice crypto prices are basically random, it's not clear that the price of Uma would drop just because Uma turned out not to work
3. Uma does a load of stuff other than settling prediction markets
4. If you know you're going to make the Uma price drop you can short Uma in other markets
5. If your goal is to make people think Trump won the election, that may well be worth more than Uma
It had Trump winning Indy voters 54 to 44 and getting 28% of the black vote and yet he ended up 5 points behind .
Clearly he’s not going to get 28% of the black vote . There does seem to also be too many Dems in the sample .
Of course we have been inundated in recent days by a flood of GOP biased polls so perhaps this is a counter weight !
https://x.com/peston/status/1846510313258058045
But I've put a bit more money back on Harris, having earlier taken a bit off the table.
Quite common when cultists are in the presence of their Great Leader.
https://nitter.poast.org/Domahhhh/status/1843320398735106155#m
There's been a significant shift in the odds, for no readily discernible reason. It would be exceedingly odd if people didn't discuss it.
Your characterisation of the discussion is equally odd.
I really want to see, but really don’t have the time to do it as I’m not actually betting at the moment, the prices between US and international markets over short periods of time.
First of all, are there arbs available if you can get on both markets?
Then which companies are leading and which are following, if it’s always the same company leading then how much money does it take to move it, as there’s plenty of money on both sides that could be well inclined to do this etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/3664381.stm#:~:text=North Wales deputy chief constable,Rukhsana Nugent, the group's secretary.
Cringe factor 11/10.
The first ball of the next over sailed right over the pavilion and straight through the back window of an unfortunate BMW in the car park.
The batsman? A 60 year old Collis King...
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/prudential-world-cup-1979-60806/england-vs-west-indies-final-65063/full-scorecard
I shall probably only bet on the night of the election, as I did last time when Biden's odds drifted during the counting so I did well.
But I still don't get your problem with others chatting about it.
Everyone seems to forget that US elections take literally weeks to count and two months to certify, nearly three months before the new President is sworn in. No-one else does this, and in the UK everyone is used to seeing the handover within 24 hours. 2010 is the only exception in my lifetime, when it still took less than a week.
Last time the postal vote favoured Biden, because in the context of the pandemic he was encouraging it whereas Trump was encouraging on-the-day voting. It’s not going to be so one-sided this time around. The chance of a Florida 2000 repeat isn’t off the charts sadly.
Good afternoon, everybody.