It is about the BBC altering the appearence of what was said or done to suit their own political bias.
I am not convinced that is objectively true
What is the BBC political bias in this case?
Trump is/was not fit to be President. That is objective fact.
What was bias and how was it manifest?
It amazes me how much in denial you are, no doubt blinded by your attitude to Trump
Most everyone on here rejects Trump, but can see that the BBC doctored a speech and should hang their heads in shame, not just because they are the BBC, but that they have 'Ratnered' their brand at home and abroad and for absolutely no gain and handed Trump a wholly undeserved win
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
They also aren't building flats in the middle of the countryside.
They are building lots of flats in *towns* - or were, until the build regulations and laws got snarled up. Such as Oxford.
It's grossly inefficient too - both in terms of the initial cost and ongoing costs of public services for suburban sprawl.
On the same land that a single Barratt box takes up, in Edinburgh we can provide 12 flats. We have already have plenty of family homes in the UK; they are just occupied by pensioners.
I'm pretty convinced abolition of stamp duty + property tax would solve much of our housing issues - and there isn't much point in building millions of homes without getting these changes in place first.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
Surely new buyers should be people just starting out and generally buying somewhere to live on their own. They won't need a family home until they meet a life partner and decide to have kids. They should be able to afford a house in their early 20s.
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
Would a court accept as evidence a recording that had been spliced together, or otherwise edited?
It was a TV show, not a courtroom.
Trump incited a riot. As they say in TV/film court dramas, the facts of this case are not in dispute.
Anyone watching Panorama will be left with the impression that Trump incited a riot.
I don't think a good outcome from this series of events is destroying the BBC so they never report the truth ever again.
Panorama isn't a "TV show". It purports to be serious journalism. A current affairs documentary slot, not a gameshow
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
Careful, there's a PBer who'll be calling you obsessed.
"BBC ‘must accept’ it is biased, says Labour MP The BBC is the biggest danger to its own future and must stop “failing to acknowledge” its institutional basis, a Labour MP has said.
Graham Stringer told The Telegraph: “I’ve been listening to the Today programme and it’s unbelievable. The people they had on were the editor of the Guardian and somebody else from the BBC. They just do not get it, they really don’t. They’re blaming everybody else.
“The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer, and blaming the Mail and the Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
Mr Stringer added: “The BBC needs to realise that they are the problem, their bias is the problem. It’s threatening the future of the BBC and not any external factors.”"
That’s not really correct. They had Charles Moore and David Yelland, who mentioned how as Editor of the Sun he would attack the BBC but he was fairly balanced. They also had a Tory from the commons culture committee who was suitably critical.
Considering the most widely discussed point of this problem is misrepresentation Stringer should also get his facts right.
The bigger problem was that they kept allowing Nick Robinson to do summaries which sounded more like a closing argument for the defence, the story should not have really taken up so much of the programme but there you go.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
Would a court accept as evidence a recording that had been spliced together, or otherwise edited?
It was a TV show, not a courtroom.
Trump incited a riot. As they say in TV/film court dramas, the facts of this case are not in dispute.
Anyone watching Panorama will be left with the impression that Trump incited a riot.
I don't think a good outcome from this series of events is destroying the BBC so they never report the truth ever again.
Panorama isn't a "TV show". It purports to be serious journalism. A current affairs documentary slot, not a gameshow
Given an editing suite just about anyone could be made to look bad.
Just because they are orange doesn't mean it is OK.
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
Until recently, I think most people assumed that what they read or saw in the media was basically true, unless there was a good reason to doubt it.
I think we are moving to a world where most people assume that what they read or see in the media is fake, either AI generated or just click bait story telling. There is growing worldwide cynicism about being able to know the truth.
There is a role for trusted verifiers of the truth, who diligently guard their reputation, carefully built over many years.
The really bad news for the BBC is that Lisa Nandy is responsible for choosing the new DG. My suspicion is that they decided to blow this thing up while she and Labour are in office as any future government might have more integrity and as is well known she is easily manipulated and her decision making is atrocious.
The good news is that this has a long way to run and there will be a few of the new INDEPENDENT journalists on it as we speak. David Yelland has turned into one of the good guys which is a nice surprise.
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
So why wasn't any of those quotes enough for the BBC?
Truss went about things in an idiotic, stupid, hubristic way, ignoring the OBR and the rest, but at least you could see, from her own idealistic perspective, what she thought she was trying to achieve.
No-one can see what Labour is trying to do, other than survive in office.
Incompetently trying to fix a hole in Government finances without doing the sensible things we suggest on here.
I would be 3p on income tax, reduce NI by 2p.
And fix council tax and stamp duty.
But that is complex so they won’t do it
I think they'll do a version of the former this budget. Probably 2p up, 2p down so they can argue working people aren't paying more.
Doesn’t raise enough - the point is all pain needs to be applied now so it’s forgotten by the next election
I always think there is nothing the BBC loves more than reporting a story about itself. Just like journalists love a film about journalists.
I do remember watching the panorama episode in question, and it could be a false memory but I am sure I thought at the time that hadn’t realised that Trump was so unequivocal in his speech.
I have always thought Trump is a nod and wink guy. You know what he means but he never states it unequivocally. He also does the thing with “some people say that” tool. They don’t say it. He thinks and wants to say it but would like to attribute it to someone else.
In some ways this is the evil genius of Trump (allied to his lack of any floor on his behaviour) - everyone knows what he means and what he wants, but if you call him on it he can deny it. Albeit those denials are often are pretty I’mplausible. That ability sends his opponents crazy, and daresay it is what led the Panorama team to edit the speech. They knew he wanted the riot (and from all the things Trump said in advance that is a reasonable conclusion), they just didn’t have the sound bite.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
Love to see the evidence you have to back up the accusations.
Reality is councils default is to approve (because that’s what the law requires).
And building costs are so high now that builders are turning round when an estate is half finished and going - so will you concede to keep as building and getting the social housing we promised.
Reality is councils should be watching for tricks builders play so that they know if you don’t get the social houses first you aren’t getting all of them
So we see Nick Robinson and the female executive of the BBC trying to defend the indefensible What happened was a disgrace. I know, it they know it. The fact that they are defending the BBC is an outrage. They should be saying its an utter disgrace!
Until recently, I think most people assumed that what they read or saw in the media was basically true, unless there was a good reason to doubt it.
I think we are moving to a world where most people assume that what they read or see in the media is fake, either AI generated or just click bait story telling. There is growing worldwide cynicism about being able to know the truth.
There is a role for trusted verifiers of the truth, who diligently guard their reputation, carefully built over many years.
The BBC had that role once.
Sadly I am becoming more like the second paragraph. I am trusting less the BBC, Sky is turning into a pound shop news of the world/Sun, and Gbeebies is just a moving version of the trashy papers.
I only watch news channels now if it is mealtime and my wife has sky on.
"BBC ‘must accept’ it is biased, says Labour MP The BBC is the biggest danger to its own future and must stop “failing to acknowledge” its institutional basis, a Labour MP has said.
Graham Stringer told The Telegraph: “I’ve been listening to the Today programme and it’s unbelievable. The people they had on were the editor of the Guardian and somebody else from the BBC. They just do not get it, they really don’t. They’re blaming everybody else.
“The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer, and blaming the Mail and the Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
Mr Stringer added: “The BBC needs to realise that they are the problem, their bias is the problem. It’s threatening the future of the BBC and not any external factors.”"
That’s not really correct. They had Charles Moore and David Yelland, who mentioned how as Editor of the Sun he would attack the BBC but he was fairly balanced. They also had a Tory from the commons culture committee who was suitably critical.
Considering the most widely discussed point of this problem is misrepresentation Stringer should also get his facts right.
The bigger problem was that they kept allowing Nick Robinson to do summaries which sounded more like a closing argument for the defence, the story should not have really taken up so much of the programme but there you go.
Charles Moore was excellent and totally reasonable the interviwer woman was seriously pissed off and close to cutting him off.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Its not trusted. Perhaps it should be forced to.use BBC verify to verify that they aren't lying.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
We need more homes - that means flats in cities (for density reasons) and houses outside.
Basically a sane approach that allows everyone to have what they want with compromises
I have always thought Trump is a nod and wink guy. You know what he means but he never states it unequivocally. He also does the thing with “some people say that” tool. They don’t say it. He thinks and wants to say it but would like to attribute it to someone else.
He used to be like that, but more recently he is starting to blurt out blatantly illegal and immoral things, but people have become so cowed and worn down by years of his craziness that it often gets little comment by the press.
So we see Nick Robinson and the female executive of the BBC trying to defend the indefensible What happened was a disgrace. I know, it they know it. The fact that they are defending the BBC is an outrage. They should be saying its an utter disgrace!
You're beating about the bush here. Is it indefensible, an outrage, a disgrace or an utter disgrace?
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Given the amount of airtime that Farage gets on the BBC, how can anyone suggest that the BBC is 'seriously biased towards the Left'? Unless the argument is that it's giving him plenty of rope so he can hang himself!
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Its not trusted. Perhaps it should be forced to.use BBC verify to verify that they aren't lying.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
Some data ownership by age group. Question. If there is continued HPI due to increasing numbers of the young chasing properties, is this not a direct transfer of wealth from one age group to another?
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
Surely new buyers should be people just starting out and generally buying somewhere to live on their own. They won't need a family home until they meet a life partner and decide to have kids. They should be able to afford a house in their early 20s.
By the time you have the deposit for a house nowadays you are likely to be approaching 30 - at which point children are very much imminent
Add on stamp duty and there is zero reason to buy a starter home, best to save a bit longer and buy your long term family home
So we see Nick Robinson and the female executive of the BBC trying to defend the indefensible What happened was a disgrace. I know, it they know it. The fact that they are defending the BBC is an outrage. They should be saying its an utter disgrace!
You're beating about the bush here. Is it indefensible, an outrage, a disgrace or an utter disgrace?
I have always thought Trump is a nod and wink guy. You know what he means but he never states it unequivocally. He also does the thing with “some people say that” tool. They don’t say it. He thinks and wants to say it but would like to attribute it to someone else.
He used to be like that, but more recently he is starting to blurt out blatantly illegal and immoral things, but people have become so cowed and worn down by years of his craziness that it often gets little comment by the press.
He went to court to stop states paying hungry people so they could eat, and is demanding states that did pay our collect the money and refund it to him (the government)
"BBC ‘must accept’ it is biased, says Labour MP The BBC is the biggest danger to its own future and must stop “failing to acknowledge” its institutional basis, a Labour MP has said.
Graham Stringer told The Telegraph: “I’ve been listening to the Today programme and it’s unbelievable. The people they had on were the editor of the Guardian and somebody else from the BBC. They just do not get it, they really don’t. They’re blaming everybody else.
“The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer, and blaming the Mail and the Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
Mr Stringer added: “The BBC needs to realise that they are the problem, their bias is the problem. It’s threatening the future of the BBC and not any external factors.”"
That’s not really correct. They had Charles Moore and David Yelland, who mentioned how as Editor of the Sun he would attack the BBC but he was fairly balanced. They also had a Tory from the commons culture committee who was suitably critical.
Considering the most widely discussed point of this problem is misrepresentation Stringer should also get his facts right.
The bigger problem was that they kept allowing Nick Robinson to do summaries which sounded more like a closing argument for the defence, the story should not have really taken up so much of the programme but there you go.
The world needs honest and courageous entrepreneurs and communicators who care for the common good. We sometimes hear the saying: “Business is business!” In reality, it is not so. No one is absorbed by an organization to the point of becoming a mere cog or a simple function. Nor can there be true humanism without a critical sense, without the courage to ask questions: "Where are we going? For whom and for what are we working? How are we making the world a better place?" https://x.com/Pontifex/status/1986778158952251435
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
If the police have a suspect they are totally convinced is guilty, do you think it's acceptable to tamper with the evidence to make the case stronger?
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
Some data ownership by age group. Question. If there is continued HPI due to increasing numbers of the young chasing properties, is this not a direct transfer of wealth from one age group to another?
Limiting house building is also Institutionally Racist.
The definition (used multiple times under *Conservative Governments*, in legal cases and official enquiries) is that outcomes are noticeably unequal across ethnic groups.
The status quo favours the older, whiter generations. It especially screws young people in London.
Whether you like it or not, the people live here, so we need the homes. Demographic changes mean future increases in demand are already baked in too.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today, we'd still need the homes.
The biggest driver is the increasing number of people living alone, partially offset by the greater number of younger people still living with a parent.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
Lots of new flats being built near the station in Epping
It's grossly inefficient too - both in terms of the initial cost and ongoing costs of public services for suburban sprawl.
On the same land that a single Barratt box takes up, in Edinburgh we can provide 12 flats. We have already have plenty of family homes in the UK; they are just occupied by pensioners.
I'm pretty convinced abolition of stamp duty + property tax would solve much of our housing issues - and there isn't much point in building millions of homes without getting these changes in place first.
So let us pray for a Kemi victory at the next GE then?
Much of what has happened at the BBC lately stems back to the genesis of 24 hour news and the primacy of news within the BBC's hierarchy, belying the fact that in many senses, there is no one "BBC" - Radio 1 has no idea of what's going on at Radio 4 and so on. In this thread I will 1/798.. https://x.com/almurray/status/1987810959398691068
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
The executive complaints unit [ECU] is the bit that's pushing this the most.
Buttigieg won Iowa in 2020, albeit Iowa's caucuses are likely to be pushed down the calendar, though Iowa Democrats may still hold a rogue caucus before S Carolina and NH have their primaries
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
If the police have a suspect they are totally convinced is guilty, do you think it's acceptable to tamper with the evidence to make the case stronger?
All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
If the police have a suspect they are totally convinced is guilty, do you think it's acceptable to tamper with the evidence to make the case stronger?
All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?
The Dems really need to be looking at other candidates.
Who would you favour ?
At present:
Hobbs, AZ gov Beshear, KY gov Whitmer, MI gov Stein, NC gov Shapiro, PN gov Kelly, AZ sen Gallego, AZ sen Slotkin, MI sen Cortez Masto, NV sen
should all be interesting possibilities.
Buttigieg will also run again and if O'Rourke wins the Texas governor race next year he would also be a contender
Buttigieg has proven himself as a liar and an incompetent.
O'Rourke is always running for some office and never achieving anything.
Those two are the Peter Principle in action.
O'Rourke got 48% in Texas in 2018 when the Democrats won the midterms, if the Democrats win the midterms by an even bigger margin next year than O'Rourke could certainly win a statewide Texas office, either as Governor or Senator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas
Our rules are clear that politicians may not present news programmes unless exceptionally justified and our recently updated guidance puts this beyond doubt. https://x.com/Ofcom/status/1987557600951488992
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
If the police have a suspect they are totally convinced is guilty, do you think it's acceptable to tamper with the evidence to make the case stronger?
All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
If the police have a suspect they are totally convinced is guilty, do you think it's acceptable to tamper with the evidence to make the case stronger?
All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?
Buttigieg won Iowa in 2020, albeit Iowa's caucuses are likely to be pushed down the calendar, though Iowa Democrats may still hold a rogue caucus before S Carolina and NH have their primaries
Given the number of elections in the US, you'd think they'd have learned how to run them democratically.
Buttigieg won Iowa in 2020, albeit Iowa's caucuses are likely to be pushed down the calendar, though Iowa Democrats may still hold a rogue caucus before S Carolina and NH have their primaries
The polls have moved rather a lot since August, and you are essentially ignoring that.
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
Surely the key message is that none of the parties are trusted on the economy.
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
I thought Reeves wanted more people investing in stocks?
I thought the Telegraph was debunked as a thoroughly unreliable source?
Is there any newspaper out there that can be deemed reliable?
Probably not.
There isn't that much money in publishing newspapers these days, and what market there is skews older and older.
So the only way to survive is to cut reporting staff to the bone, publish clickbait to scare/affirm your retired readers (because they're the only ones you have) or hope that some billionaire buys you up as a personal pulpit.
One of the possibilities that gets missed in the pre-budget period is the the sources for all these "Reeves will tax X" stories may be the Treasury, but they may also be the voices in the head of some hack.
I hear it's a standard Treasury tactic to say they may blow up bombs everywhere so that when only one or two goes off, rather than four or five, everyone is relieved.
Personally, I'm not sure I buy it. It's a very political angle to take and the Treasury would know the economic damage it could do as it fuels speculation everywhere.
I think it's Reeves and her team doing a bit of kiteflying and laying smoke.
The suggestion of the 20% “exit tax” was on the news headlines and discussed on the breakfast radio show in the sandpit this morning.
That’s how much of an affect it’s having already, people are making decisions that will stick even if it doesn’t happen this year. People know it’s been floated, and there’s three more Labour budgets still to come.
I agree the constant tax speculation is unhelpful. It's one reason why I really hope Reeves make OBR forecasts annual. Otherwise we're on speculation of budget black holes every 6 months and the preceding period, which is completely unnecessary.
On the exit tax, I do think it's worth exploring taxes on expats to low tax countries, but I'm not sure what form that should take. What people shouldn't be able to do is spend their working years abroad paying no tax and then retiring here and taking advantage of our healthcare and state pension with only a few quid spent on voluntary NI contributions.
If people want the benefits of citizenship / residency in retirement, they should pay their fair share during their working life.
But doesn't that cut both ways, with some foreigners working here and paying tax then retiring back home? I'm not a fan of people being taxed twice over. It's telling that only the USA and Eritrea currently, I think, impose income tax on citizens who work overseas.
For EU countries like France, Germany USA etc, then yes it does. And I don't think there's necessarily a need to tax people who move abroad to live in other countries with a similar tax burden - you just accept it broadly comes out in the wash.
It's the people going off to live in zero (or close to zero) tax countries, often in well paying jobs, and then retaining all the upside of citizenship that I object most to.
I'm sure there's lots of ways you could design a system that only targets that segment.
No representation without taxation? Emigrants do seem to retain their vote in the UK remarkably long, thanks to the Conservative administration. Which likes old elderly retirees, QED.
In no way did they frame Trump or make false claims or even suggestions about what he did. There's so many things to complain about with the Beeb. This isn't one of them
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
Surely the key message is that none of the parties are trusted on the economy.
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
I'm going to blame social media. Too many people following too many people apparently living perfect lives. Perfect houses, holidays, looking beautiful. Most peoples lives are more complicated than that. Back in the day keeping up with the Jones's was about people in your street and social circle. Doable. Now people are chasing impossible (and mostly fake) standards of living.
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
Surely the key message is that none of the parties are trusted on the economy.
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
Social media forments dissatisfaction. Edit: @turbotubbs has explained it better than I can.
If the BBC is “biased” in any way, it is institutionally small c conservative, and socially liberal.
That is because most of the people who work there are; shock horror; institutionally small c conservative and socially liberal.
Sometimes they overcompensate for this. Sometimes they don’t exercise enough editorial rigour to stress test some of this. As I say upthread, the big issue is the decline in journalistic standards.
The reason we have a particular flashpoint at the moment is that there are movements gaining support in this country for much more radical shifts in the way society works and in policy terms. That crashes against the small-c conservative BBC bulkhead and causes friction.
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
Surely the key message is that none of the parties are trusted on the economy.
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
Social media forments dissatisfaction. Edit: @turbotubbs has explained it better than I can.
I'm old enough to remember when TV commercials on ITV were blamed for dissatisfaction. Back in the 1960s.
Though social media do seem particularly effective!
Our rules are clear that politicians may not present news programmes unless exceptionally justified and our recently updated guidance puts this beyond doubt. https://x.com/Ofcom/status/1987557600951488992
GB News is Reform TV.
I've heard Camilla Tominey commenting words to that effect, in addition to it being blatantly obvious.
It's about time the government and the BBC face down their critics instead of kowtowing to them. They should appoint somebody popular with the public, sensible, and with tons of media experience to replace Tim Davie. Gary Lineker, your time has come.
It's about time the government and the BBC face down their critics instead of kowtowing to them. They should appoint somebody popular with the public, sensible, and with tons of media experience to replace Tim Davie. Gary Lineker, your time has come.
Abolish the licence fee and they can appoint who they like, slant their reporting how they like etc.
Until then they have a duty not to do stupid stunts like this.
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
Surely the key message is that none of the parties are trusted on the economy.
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
Social media forments dissatisfaction. Edit: @turbotubbs has explained it better than I can.
There has been a long period of increasing wealth. That is now not happening. A large chunk of he population is seeing a lifestyle *retreat*.
The younger people I row with find going to the *pub* an expensive, planned outing. Not the casual, not-doing-anything-else thing. Eating out, similarly. They find that the housing they can afford is smaller and shittier each time they have to move.
The really bad news for the BBC is that Lisa Nandy is responsible for choosing the new DG. My suspicion is that they decided to blow this thing up while she and Labour are in office as any future government might have more integrity and as is well known she is easily manipulated and her decision making is atrocious.
The good news is that this has a long way to run and there will be a few of the new INDEPENDENT journalists on it as we speak. David Yelland has turned into one of the good guys which is a nice surprise.
In no way did they frame Trump or make false claims or even suggestions about what he did. There's so many things to complain about with the Beeb. This isn't one of them
It isn't really the edit which underlies all this. That was just the trigger. The leak of an internal BBC report (prepared by a guy with his own agenda) to the Telegraph was more instrumental.
The BBC board was then deadlocked on how to respond, which meant the BBC no-commenting for days on end. That clearly became untenable for the two who resigned (and they may have done so in attempt to resolve the ongoing mess).
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
If Your Party ends up with the 6 Independent Alliance MPs and polling 30% I expect you will see it more often on the BBC. Reform appears to be the most popular party in the country at the moment
It's about time the government and the BBC face down their critics instead of kowtowing to them. They should appoint somebody popular with the public, sensible, and with tons of media experience to replace Tim Davie. Gary Lineker, your time has come.
A united BBC Board might well have done so. but it isn't united.
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Err - The BBC doctored a speech by Trump and has been found out
It is amazing how many are trying to dismiss this as a right wing plot, when the facts show the BBC handed Trump an entirely underserved win by their very own malign behaviour
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
Surely new buyers should be people just starting out and generally buying somewhere to live on their own. They won't need a family home until they meet a life partner and decide to have kids. They should be able to afford a house in their early 20s.
By the time you have the deposit for a house nowadays you are likely to be approaching 30 - at which point children are very much imminent
Add on stamp duty and there is zero reason to buy a starter home, best to save a bit longer and buy your long term family home
Well, a certain proportion of people live on their own and never have kids. Some people like living in a smaller property (less expensive to run, less maintenance, can spend the money on other things) and some couples don't have kids. And if many more smaller properties were built, supply might meet demand.
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
Surely the key message is that none of the parties are trusted on the economy.
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
Social media forments dissatisfaction. Edit: @turbotubbs has explained it better than I can.
There has been a long period of increasing wealth. That is now not happening. A large chunk of he population is seeing a lifestyle *retreat*.
The younger people I row with find going to the *pub* an expensive, planned outing. Not the casual, not-doing-anything-else thing. Eating out, similarly. They find that the housing they can afford is smaller and shittier each time they have to move.
We should, and this is at the very largest scale be getting *actually richer* with the technological progress in wind and solar.
Only China is imv leveraging this anything close to properly though I think.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
If Your Party ends up with the 6 Independent Alliance MPs and polling 30% I expect you will see it more often on the BBC. Reform appears to be the most popular party in the country at the moment
The majority of Farage's appearance on eg QT were before Reform existed. Still, I'm sure there's no causation there.
Lots of pearl clutching here. Orange man bad stuff, yes he is quite bad. But he will be gone soon, I never thought there was a risk that the BBC might implode before he does.
The excuses on here "yeah but he was inciting a riot", well then why splice the video together to make it appear he was saying something different to what he did?
They caught fabricating a narrative. That other media organisations do this is neither here or there. Just because other car manufacturers repeatedly break down, and yours has an excellent reputation for reliability shouldnt mean you start producing models that break down. ‘ The BBC is only really a few more mistakes away from implosion. Imagine losing a post truth pi*sing contest with Donald Trump.
I'm clearly going to have to start officially complaining every time they edit his current ramblings to make him sound semi-coherent.
That's going to keep me pretty busy, as they do so regularly.
It’s slightly weird that it’s taken so long for Trump and Trumpers to notice this supposedly egregious piece of editing, also what practical effect did a piece broadcast to UK viewers have on US politics?
Quite a good list of quotes to put the ‘poor misrepresented Trump’ narrative into context.
None whatsoever- which is indicated by the fact that the piece received all of ... zero complaints at the time.
That’s a sign of just how good a fabrication it was. The best lies are hidden in truth. Nothing Burgers don’t take down the DG and head of news at one of the world’s most recognisable media organisations. They lied. They lied. They lied.
I was jaw dropping shocked when I saw it. I was saddened to the core that it was the BBC and Panorama. A show that from my youth had always been a programme that meant truth and integrity.
If a show like Panorama on a station like the BBC can so easily deceive, it makes me question assumptions about all news reporting. It’s devastating. To simply dismiss it as orange man bag and it’s probably what he meant anyway, just adds. Carrying water for media corruption because its a noble lie.
The truth: Trump incited a riot The edited lie: Trump incited a riot
Why the performative shock? We aren't morons on X, doesn't work here.
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
Love to see the evidence you have to back up the accusations.
Reality is councils default is to approve (because that’s what the law requires).
And building costs are so high now that builders are turning round when an estate is half finished and going - so will you concede to keep as building and getting the social housing we promised.
Reality is councils should be watching for tricks builders play so that they know if you don’t get the social houses first you aren’t getting all of them
AIUI Councils have a legal duty to take into account objections up until the time the decision is made (I have used this myself to address the first 90% of objections before the meeting), and conversations with both objectors and developers are a standard part of the process.
It's just normal process to discuss options to obtain suitable developments. Many Councils offer a paid for advice service.
There is sometimes a wrinkle in that officers don't look at any objections until the objection deadline has been reached, so it is a single piece of work.
I have also occasionally wanted to make an anonymous, unpublished objection. I would not do that in writing, as no Council known to me has the rock solid competence not to publish by details in error. There are ways, but it requires finesse.
I have one pending where the applicant is a senior member of a local traveller gang who are part of the local organised crime scene, where neighbours have been threatened with violence and intimidated for years. No one has objected of course, and If I make a traditional identifiable objection I am quite possibly going to get 2 or 3 muscled men turning up on my doorstep telling me to withdraw it or else.
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
The key comfort is they are ahead of Labour AND Reform on the economy, at the last GE they were well behind Labour on the economy
Surely the key message is that none of the parties are trusted on the economy.
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
Social media forments dissatisfaction. Edit: @turbotubbs has explained it better than I can.
There has been a long period of increasing wealth. That is now not happening. A large chunk of he population is seeing a lifestyle *retreat*.
The younger people I row with find going to the *pub* an expensive, planned outing. Not the casual, not-doing-anything-else thing. Eating out, similarly. They find that the housing they can afford is smaller and shittier each time they have to move.
We should, and this is at the very largest scale be getting *actually richer* with the technological progress in wind and solar.
Only China is imv leveraging this anything close to properly though I think.
The problem is that some people aren't bothering to see the future. And a chunk actively don't want cheaper energy prices. Because they don't want *consumption*.
Lots of pearl clutching here. Orange man bad stuff, yes he is quite bad. But he will be gone soon, I never thought there was a risk that the BBC might implode before he does.
The excuses on here "yeah but he was inciting a riot", well then why splice the video together to make it appear he was saying something different to what he did?
They caught fabricating a narrative. That other media organisations do this is neither here or there. Just because other car manufacturers repeatedly break down, and yours has an excellent reputation for reliability shouldnt mean you start producing models that break down. ‘ The BBC is only really a few more mistakes away from implosion. Imagine losing a post truth pi*sing contest with Donald Trump.
I'm clearly going to have to start officially complaining every time they edit his current ramblings to make him sound semi-coherent.
That's going to keep me pretty busy, as they do so regularly.
It’s slightly weird that it’s taken so long for Trump and Trumpers to notice this supposedly egregious piece of editing, also what practical effect did a piece broadcast to UK viewers have on US politics?
Quite a good list of quotes to put the ‘poor misrepresented Trump’ narrative into context.
None whatsoever- which is indicated by the fact that the piece received all of ... zero complaints at the time.
That’s a sign of just how good a fabrication it was. The best lies are hidden in truth. Nothing Burgers don’t take down the DG and head of news at one of the world’s most recognisable media organisations. They lied. They lied. They lied.
I was jaw dropping shocked when I saw it. I was saddened to the core that it was the BBC and Panorama. A show that from my youth had always been a programme that meant truth and integrity.
If a show like Panorama on a station like the BBC can so easily deceive, it makes me question assumptions about all news reporting. It’s devastating. To simply dismiss it as orange man bag and it’s probably what he meant anyway, just adds. Carrying water for media corruption because its a noble lie.
The truth: Trump incited a riot The edited lie: Trump incited a riot
Why the performative shock? We aren't morons on X, doesn't work here.
Because if we stand for nothing we fall for anything.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
I think the BBC is a bit right biased but since a lot of righties thing it's left biased, I am willing to conclude that anything not echoing your own view is likely to seem biased the other way.
I do genuinely think it tries to be neutral most times and succeeds more often than not.
Sadly, its days are probably numbered - another great British institution trashed in the pursuit of political and financial goals by people who really only give a shit about themselves and their family.
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
I think the BBC is a bit right biased but since a lot of righties thing it's left biased, I am willing to conclude that anything not echoing your own view is likely to seem biased the other way.
I do genuinely think it tries to be neutral most times and succeeds more often than not.
Sadly, its days are probably numbered - another great British institution trashed in the pursuit of political and financial goals by people who really only give a shit about themselves and their family.
Its an absurd anachronism - we need to scrap the TV license and go to direct funding like any other provider.
The sad reality though is that in this post-truth world people want to hear the news they want to hear. BBC News gets shouted at by both sides by getting it "wrong" which to me shows they are largely managing to balance it.
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
This 'BBC is seriously biased to the Left' is an obvious load of wank, isn't it. What we have here is a concerted attempt at political interference from bad actors on the Right. People who want to cow and control the BBC or failing that kill it off. A potentially successful attempt too, judging by how things are going. But it's not over yet. The BBC and all those who value it (for all its faults the most trusted source of news and info in the world) need to recognize the threat and fight fight fight against it. Fight like hell or we won't have a quality, non-partisan public broadcaster anymore.
Personally, I've always felt the BBC has had two biases:
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
If Your Party ends up with the 6 Independent Alliance MPs and polling 30% I expect you will see it more often on the BBC. Reform appears to be the most popular party in the country at the moment
The majority of Farage's appearance on eg QT were before Reform existed. Still, I'm sure there's no causation there.
I find this pre-occupation with the number of times Farage jhas appeared on QT to be rather amusing.
Farage is 6th on the all time list of the number of times he has apeared as a guest on the programme. And 4th in terms of number of times per year.
You would think from all the clamour that he appears every other week, or even every other month. In fact he has appeared on the programme 38 times in 24 years at an average of 1.5 times per year. This is the same number of appearences and the same average per year as Michael Heseltine.
Kenneth Clarke made the most appearences - 59 times in 37 years at an average of 1.6 times a year.
Shirley Williams has the second highest number of appearences but the highest number per year - 58 times in 35 years at an average of 1.7
Then Ming Campbell (47), Harriet Harmen (45) and Charles Kennedy (44).
If you want to make any claim based on that list then it would be that overwhelmingly their was a massive imbalance in favour of pro-EU guests.
Of course the real reason is that they were articulate, passionate and entertaining, whether you agreed with them or not.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
We live in a nice 3 bed detached family home. We are in the north east so not worth a fortune by London standards but reasonable nonetheless. We would be happy to trade down to a 2 bed bungalow in the same area but the stamp duty puts us off. I know it would not be massive but it’s an extra cost you need to find.
We will just stay put.
I see some housing charity or,other are banging on about a housing crisis in Newcastle of all places.
Perhaps if we didn’t have NIMBYs blocking developments, like the one in Ouseburn where there is plenty of derelict land by the cycle hub, or had redeveloped the desolate land by the Utilita Arena years ago, it would be less of an issue.
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
#pbfreespeech
BTW I totally agree with your take on Ncuti Gatwa and Dr Who. I suspect he’s an unfairly maligned young man who did his best with a crap hand.
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
#pbfreespeech
BTW I totally agree with your take on Ncuti Gatwa and Dr Who. I suspect he’s an unfairly maligned young man who did his best with a crap hand.
I thought both he and Jodie Whittaker were and are excellent actors let down by terrible writing and an apparent determination to detsroy the canon that has sustained the series for so long. They could have done wonders with both actors if they had been given a chance with some decent story lines written by people who actualy understood the series.
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
#pbfreespeech
BTW I totally agree with your take on Ncuti Gatwa and Dr Who. I suspect he’s an unfairly maligned young man who did his best with a crap hand.
Script and story is everything. I feel for Jodie Whitaker. She suffered from terrible scripts (and covid) and rubbish stories. Cardinal rule for Dr Who - don't have more then two companions. It. Never. Works.
If I were the BBC, I'd be trying to find a way to escape the licence fee and become more independent:
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
I can see this government going with some sort on enforced payment via council tax.
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
Our rules are clear that politicians may not present news programmes unless exceptionally justified and our recently updated guidance puts this beyond doubt. https://x.com/Ofcom/status/1987557600951488992
GB News is Reform TV.
I've heard Camilla Tominey commenting words to that effect, in addition to it being blatantly obvious.
A perfect balance to Channel4 News and Channel4 which is Your Party/Zak attack central. They’ve even commissioned Wealth Tax fanatic Gary Stevenson to make a documentary about a Wealth Tax. I’m sure that will be even handed and impartial 🙄
Comments
I don't think anybody seriously disputes that
Most everyone on here rejects Trump, but can see that the BBC doctored a speech and should hang their heads in shame, not just because they are the BBC, but that they have 'Ratnered' their brand at home and abroad and for absolutely no gain and handed Trump a wholly undeserved win
They are building lots of flats in *towns* - or were, until the build regulations and laws got snarled up. Such as Oxford.
It's grossly inefficient too - both in terms of the initial cost and ongoing costs of public services for suburban sprawl.
On the same land that a single Barratt box takes up, in Edinburgh we can provide 12 flats. We have already have plenty of family homes in the UK; they are just occupied by pensioners.
I'm pretty convinced abolition of stamp duty + property tax would solve much of our housing issues - and there isn't much point in building millions of homes without getting these changes in place first.
Have you considered a career at the beeb Roger? 💩🥴
Considering the most widely discussed point of this problem is misrepresentation Stringer should also get his facts right.
The bigger problem was that they kept allowing Nick Robinson to do summaries which sounded more like a closing argument for the defence, the story should not have really taken up so much of the programme but there you go.
Just because they are orange doesn't mean it is OK.
@lewis_goodall
A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.
I think we are moving to a world where most people assume that what they read or see in the media is fake, either AI generated or just click bait story telling. There is growing worldwide cynicism about being able to know the truth.
There is a role for trusted verifiers of the truth, who diligently guard their reputation, carefully built over many years.
The BBC had that role once.
The good news is that this has a long way to run and there will be a few of the new INDEPENDENT journalists on it as we speak. David Yelland has turned into one of the good guys which is a nice surprise.
The White House is now telling us which news we should watch. Think about that for a bit.
https://x.com/KirstieMAllsopp/status/1987638991466663980?s=20
I do remember watching the panorama episode in question, and it could be a false memory but I am sure I thought at the time that hadn’t realised that Trump was so unequivocal in his speech.
I have always thought Trump is a nod and wink guy. You know what he means but he never states it unequivocally. He also does the thing with “some people say that” tool. They don’t say it. He thinks and wants to say it but would like to attribute it to someone else.
In some ways this is the evil genius of Trump (allied to his lack of any floor on his behaviour) - everyone knows what he means and what he wants, but if you call him on it he can deny it. Albeit those denials are often are pretty I’mplausible. That ability sends his opponents crazy, and daresay it is what led the Panorama team to edit the speech. They knew he wanted the riot (and from all the things Trump said in advance that is a reasonable conclusion), they just didn’t have the sound bite.
Reality is councils default is to approve (because that’s what the law requires).
And building costs are so high now that builders are turning round when an estate is half finished and going - so will you concede to keep as building and getting the social housing we promised.
Reality is councils should be watching for tricks builders play so that they know if you don’t get the social houses first you aren’t getting all of them
What happened was a disgrace. I know, it they know it.
The fact that they are defending the BBC is an outrage.
They should be saying its an utter disgrace!
I only watch news channels now if it is mealtime and my wife has sky on.
Basically a sane approach that allows everyone to have what they want with compromises
Is it indefensible, an outrage, a disgrace or an utter disgrace?
Unless the argument is that it's giving him plenty of rope so he can hang himself!
Add on stamp duty and there is zero reason to buy a starter home, best to save a bit longer and buy your long term family home
The world needs honest and courageous entrepreneurs and communicators who care for the common good. We sometimes hear the saying: “Business is business!” In reality, it is not so. No one is absorbed by an organization to the point of becoming a mere cog or a simple function. Nor can there be true humanism without a critical sense, without the courage to ask questions: "Where are we going? For whom and for what are we working? How are we making the world a better place?"
https://x.com/Pontifex/status/1986778158952251435
The definition (used multiple times under *Conservative Governments*, in legal cases and official enquiries) is that outcomes are noticeably unequal across ethnic groups.
The status quo favours the older, whiter generations. It especially screws young people in London.
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
Lots of new flats being built near the station in Epping
Much of what has happened at the BBC lately stems back to the genesis of 24 hour news and the primacy of news within the BBC's hierarchy, belying the fact that in many senses, there is no one "BBC" - Radio 1 has no idea of what's going on at Radio 4 and so on. In this thread I will 1/798..
https://x.com/almurray/status/1987810959398691068
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/democratic-primary/2028/new-hampshire
Buttigieg led Newsom in an August N Carolina poll and I expect S Carolina would be similar
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/democratic-primary/2028/north-carolina
Buttigieg won Iowa in 2020, albeit Iowa's caucuses are likely to be pushed down the calendar, though Iowa Democrats may still hold a rogue caucus before S Carolina and NH have their primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas
Our rules are clear that politicians may not present news programmes unless exceptionally justified and our recently updated guidance puts this beyond doubt.
https://x.com/Ofcom/status/1987557600951488992
Although it does give both views as a rule, there has always been a clear right wing bias (perhaps - I mean conservative) in selection and framing overall. Recently the migration debate has illustrated this well. The current fixation with Farage and Reform is an unusually obvious example of this. (By comparison, how often are people like Corbyn and Sultana on the Today programme, for example?)
Secondly, it tends to be deferential to government. This was obvious during Covid, when it rarely challenged the government line.
Taken together, it means that its right wing bias is usually less obvious when there is a Labour government and the two biases largely cancel each other out. The BBC's weird fixation with Reform (and also very soft pedalling on Trump) is unusual with an incumbent Labour government.
However, I wonder whether the timing of this eruption is more down to Israel/Gaza than anything? The BBC is unquestionably biased to Palestine in its coverage and they definitely have big problems with their Arabic service. I note that the Today programme avoided it completely this morning. This isn't really a left/right issue, just a choice between different nationalisms (FWIW I support neither).
The Cardassians had a point.
https://x.com/SilvermanJacob/status/1987681525660373103?s=20
To me that points to a combination of a general malaise and grossly unrealistic expectations.
'Britain is broken' and 'the country is in a terrible state' are the comments bandied around, but by many measures for most people life is much better than it was 50, 75, or 100 years ago.
I have no idea why there is so much dissatisfaction but it seems endemic, and not just in Britain.
In no way did they frame Trump or make false claims or even suggestions about what he did. There's so many things to complain about with the Beeb. This isn't one of them
Back in the day keeping up with the Jones's was about people in your street and social circle. Doable. Now people are chasing impossible (and mostly fake) standards of living.
Edit: @turbotubbs has explained it better than I can.
That is because most of the people who work there are; shock horror; institutionally small c conservative and socially liberal.
Sometimes they overcompensate for this. Sometimes they don’t exercise enough editorial rigour to stress test some of this. As I say upthread, the big issue is the decline in journalistic standards.
The reason we have a particular flashpoint at the moment is that there are movements gaining support in this country for much more radical shifts in the way society works and in policy terms. That crashes against the small-c conservative BBC bulkhead and causes friction.
Though social media do seem particularly effective!
I've heard Camilla Tominey commenting words to that effect, in addition to it being blatantly obvious.
Gary Lineker, your time has come.
Until then they have a duty not to do stupid stunts like this.
The younger people I row with find going to the *pub* an expensive, planned outing. Not the casual, not-doing-anything-else thing. Eating out, similarly. They find that the housing they can afford is smaller and shittier each time they have to move.
The appointment is made by the BBC Board
That was just the trigger.
The leak of an internal BBC report (prepared by a guy with his own agenda) to the Telegraph was more instrumental.
The BBC board was then deadlocked on how to respond, which meant the BBC no-commenting for days on end. That clearly became untenable for the two who resigned (and they may have done so in attempt to resolve the ongoing mess).
but it isn't united.
Worth spending a bit of time looking at some of the board members.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Gibb
Also. Unprocessed trauma from the pandemic.
The central character in this is Robbie Gibb. The former Conservative press secretary at 10 Downing Street, appointed to the BBC Board by Boris Johnson’s government in 2021, has for the last four years worked to dismantle what he sees as the liberal bias in the BBC. Generally, board directors do not weigh in on decisions about who is being appointed to edit which programme or the choice of stories and their running order on the news. Gibb has.
Gibb’s supporters say he is trying to save the BBC from itself; he was also heard last year to say that if he didn’t get his way, he would “blow the place up”.
https://observer.co.uk/opinion-and-ideas/leaders/article/the-observer-view-political-interference-at-the-bbc
Once again the baleful legacy of Johnson's term in office still haunts the country.
It is amazing how many are trying to dismiss this as a right wing plot, when the facts show the BBC handed Trump an entirely underserved win by their very own malign behaviour
Only China is imv leveraging this anything close to properly though I think.
Still, I'm sure there's no causation there.
It's just normal process to discuss options to obtain suitable developments. Many Councils offer a paid for advice service.
There is sometimes a wrinkle in that officers don't look at any objections until the objection deadline has been reached, so it is a single piece of work.
I have also occasionally wanted to make an anonymous, unpublished objection. I would not do that in writing, as no Council known to me has the rock solid competence not to publish by details in error. There are ways, but it requires finesse.
I have one pending where the applicant is a senior member of a local traveller gang who are part of the local organised crime scene, where neighbours have been threatened with violence and intimidated for years. No one has objected of course, and If I make a traditional identifiable objection I am quite possibly going to get 2 or 3 muscled men turning up on my doorstep telling me to withdraw it or else.
I do genuinely think it tries to be neutral most times and succeeds more often than not.
Sadly, its days are probably numbered - another great British institution trashed in the pursuit of political and financial goals by people who really only give a shit about themselves and their family.
The sad reality though is that in this post-truth world people want to hear the news they want to hear. BBC News gets shouted at by both sides by getting it "wrong" which to me shows they are largely managing to balance it.
1) Subscription service: put all content behind a paywall, unusually set equal to the licence fee but that can be gradually increased or tiered (e.g. 4K quality tier) over time.
2) Negotiate for a government grant for non-commercial activities. World service, minority languages, local radio. Give the grant or else see cuts. The more commercially viable offerings can then compete for subscriptions on a fair basis.
3) Introduce advertising, while adding a more premium subscription tier that is advert free.
I'd certainly pay...
Farage is 6th on the all time list of the number of times he has apeared as a guest on the programme. And 4th in terms of number of times per year.
You would think from all the clamour that he appears every other week, or even every other month. In fact he has appeared on the programme 38 times in 24 years at an average of 1.5 times per year. This is the same number of appearences and the same average per year as Michael Heseltine.
Kenneth Clarke made the most appearences - 59 times in 37 years at an average of 1.6 times a year.
Shirley Williams has the second highest number of appearences but the highest number per year - 58 times in 35 years at an average of 1.7
Then Ming Campbell (47), Harriet Harmen (45) and Charles Kennedy (44).
If you want to make any claim based on that list then it would be that overwhelmingly their was a massive imbalance in favour of pro-EU guests.
Of course the real reason is that they were articulate, passionate and entertaining, whether you agreed with them or not.
We will just stay put.
I see some housing charity or,other are banging on about a housing crisis in Newcastle of all places.
Perhaps if we didn’t have NIMBYs blocking developments, like the one in Ouseburn where there is plenty of derelict land by the cycle hub, or had redeveloped the desolate land by the Utilita Arena years ago, it would be less of an issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/nov/10/similar-pressure-to-london-the-housing-crisis-reaches-newcastle