Skip to content

Ohio? More like Oh No for Trump, Vance, and the Republicans – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,175
edited April 15 in General
Ohio? More like Oh No for Trump, Vance, and the Republicans – politicalbetting.com

To quote the great Scooby Doo, it's a "ruh roh" moment for Trump when it comes to Non-College White voters.His net approval is down 34 pts from last year & is now negative in avg. of polls. This decline is putting the Senate race in Ohio (a state Trump's won 3x) in play. pic.twitter.com/5JoV7Yj2iI

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,272
    Well at least someone likes him.


  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,789
    The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,398
    One can only hope and pray this poll nose-dive continues through until November.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,516

    The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?

    Why would the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior need to go to Church?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,938
    Vance still leads GOP primary polls by miles with his only rivals Eric Trump Jr and Rubio who are even more tied into the war than he is.

    However, while MAGA still back the conflict with Iran, swing voters don't and that will create problems for him in the general election
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,439

    The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?

    Performativeness at a high class level - and Trump has been good at this even if the shine is beginning to tarnish - has a curious feature. The disciples don't expect the actor to live out the ethics of the act. Globally famous star musicians with socialist/Marxist/green credentials are not for one moment expected by the faithful to live proletarian or simple lives way off the Midas grid. Same with Trump and his part in the Elmer Gantry tradition.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,542
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    Because they are making more TV programmes? I thought that was their thing?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,439
    Battlebus said:

    Well at least someone likes him.


    I wonder what Trump replies to these wise words of Jesus?

  • sladeslade Posts: 2,369
    2 local by-elections tomorrow - Leicestershire and Northumberland. Both are Ref defences.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,102
    HYUFD said:

    Vance still leads GOP primary polls by miles with his only rivals Eric Trump Jr and Rubio who are even more tied into the war than he is.

    However, while MAGA still back the conflict with Iran, swing voters don't and that will create problems for him in the general election

    It’s not good for your prospects if, although your most loyal supporters still back you 100%, swing voters will vote for whoever can defeat you. See also: Reform.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,192
    slade said:

    2 local by-elections tomorrow - Leicestershire and Northumberland. Both are Ref defences.

    Most likely result is Ref loses one of them and holds the other.
  • Is 25th Section 4 even an option? IANAL but I don't think it is.

    Section 4 enables Congress by law to provide an alternative to the Cabinet to support the Veep in ousting the President.

    The problem is Congress has not passed any law to do so, and to pass a law to do so requires going through full legislative procedures . . . which could be vetoed by the President.

    So would require not just Vance to turn on Trump, but a two thirds majority in the Senate to override a veto too.

    If two thirds of the Senate wanted him gone, impeachment would not need Vance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,938
    HYUFD said:

    Vance still leads GOP primary polls by miles with his only rivals Eric Trump Jr and Rubio who are even more tied into the war than he is.

    However, while MAGA still back the conflict with Iran, swing voters don't and that will create problems for him in the general election

    Sorry Donald Trump Jr and Rubio
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,938

    HYUFD said:

    Vance still leads GOP primary polls by miles with his only rivals Eric Trump Jr and Rubio who are even more tied into the war than he is.

    However, while MAGA still back the conflict with Iran, swing voters don't and that will create problems for him in the general election

    It’s not good for your prospects if, although your most loyal supporters still back you 100%, swing voters will vote for whoever can defeat you. See also: Reform.
    Vance will certainly hope the Iran conflict is over well before 2028
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,705
    algarkirk said:

    The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?

    Performativeness at a high class level - and Trump has been good at this even if the shine is beginning to tarnish - has a curious feature. The disciples don't expect the actor to live out the ethics of the act. Globally famous star musicians with socialist/Marxist/green credentials are not for one moment expected by the faithful to live proletarian or simple lives way off the Midas grid. Same with Trump and his part in the Elmer Gantry tradition.
    Retaining some semblance of your marbles is necessary for "performativeness* at a high level".

    Trump: Thom Tillis is no longer a senator.

    Bartiromo: ...

    Trump: Thom Tillis is no longer a senator, right?

    https://x.com/HQNewsNow/status/2044413451678658863


    *appropriately, autocorrect tried to change this to "performative mess".

    Also, Trump never did anything at a high class level.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,218
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,705
    Talarico raised $27 Million in the first quarter and Ossoff raised $14 Million

    Holy shit

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2044410267337994710
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,516
    algarkirk said:

    Battlebus said:

    Well at least someone likes him.


    I wonder what Trump replies to these wise words of Jesus?

    Errr, I think you will find it is Jesus who is listening to the Gospel according to Trump.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,516
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?

    Performativeness at a high class level - and Trump has been good at this even if the shine is beginning to tarnish - has a curious feature. The disciples don't expect the actor to live out the ethics of the act. Globally famous star musicians with socialist/Marxist/green credentials are not for one moment expected by the faithful to live proletarian or simple lives way off the Midas grid. Same with Trump and his part in the Elmer Gantry tradition.
    Retaining some semblance of your marbles is necessary for "performativeness* at a high level".

    Trump: Thom Tillis is no longer a senator.

    Bartiromo: ...

    Trump: Thom Tillis is no longer a senator, right?

    https://x.com/HQNewsNow/status/2044413451678658863


    *appropriately, autocorrect tried to change this to "performative mess".

    Also, Trump never did anything at a high class level.
    It's traditional, sure.

    Although the US seems to have dispensed with compis mentis as a requirement for its leaders of late.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,887
    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Battlebus said:

    Well at least someone likes him.


    I wonder what Trump replies to these wise words of Jesus?

    Errr, I think you will find it is Jesus who is listening to the Gospel according to Trump.
    Trump should nominate an antipope and send special forces into the Vatican.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,705
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?

    Performativeness at a high class level - and Trump has been good at this even if the shine is beginning to tarnish - has a curious feature. The disciples don't expect the actor to live out the ethics of the act. Globally famous star musicians with socialist/Marxist/green credentials are not for one moment expected by the faithful to live proletarian or simple lives way off the Midas grid. Same with Trump and his part in the Elmer Gantry tradition.
    Retaining some semblance of your marbles is necessary for "performativeness* at a high level".

    Trump: Thom Tillis is no longer a senator.

    Bartiromo: ...

    Trump: Thom Tillis is no longer a senator, right?

    https://x.com/HQNewsNow/status/2044413451678658863


    *appropriately, autocorrect tried to change this to "performative mess".

    Also, Trump never did anything at a high class level.
    It's traditional, sure.

    Although the US seems to have dispensed with compos mentis as a requirement for its leaders of late.
    In Trump's case, it's compost mentis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,938
    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Battlebus said:

    Well at least someone likes him.


    I wonder what Trump replies to these wise words of Jesus?

    Errr, I think you will find it is Jesus who is listening to the Gospel according to Trump.
    Not according to his Papal representative on earth.

    Vance was notably less critical of the Pope, saying he was entitled to give his views on the issues of the day but should not get too involved in politics. As he knows Roman Catholics are key swing voters in the US, voting for Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020 and Trump again in 2024. As well as being Roman Catholic himself he also needs their votes in 2028
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,571
    Because I am a nerd, I have spent a happy fifteen minutes looking through the list of local election candidates for Trafford. Do you remember the days when most wards had three candidates at most? I remember lamenting the lack of choice, not really thinking that the expansion of choice would be almost exclusively made up of parties I would have less intention of voting for than I did for the original three. But I suppose we should celebrate the broadening of democracy.
    Anyway, all Trafford wards have at least five candidates (Con – strangely branded as ‘local conservative’ in wards in the northern half of Trafford – Grn, LD, Lab, Ref), with Advance making it up to six in 6 wards out of 21, a smattering of independents, and the SDP standing a lone candidate, though not in my ward.
    There is quiet enjoyment to be had from picturing the candidates from their names alone: Bowdon ward, for example, offers us Ron Hutton of Advance and Ludo Tolhurst-Cleaver of the Lib Dems, while Brooklands offers John Spencer Churchill for Reform and Renate Aspden for the Green Party, all of which are surely names created by AI trying to come up with likely-sounding names for those parties. Similarly the Reform candidates Billy Burke, Bill Sumner and Charles William Oliver Rear, the Green Party’s Centaine Wendy Parker, the Lib Dems’ Will Frass, the Conservative Party’s Rupert Owen Kelly and the Labour Party’s Seth Champion (though AI appears here to be suggesting a candidate for the Labour Party circa 1955).

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/trafford-council-local-elections-2026-33751246
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 582
    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
    I get almost all the content I need via YouTube. I also have Netflix and Prime but tbh I could manage without. The truth is the BBC is a giant Cnut raging against the tides of the times.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.

    I certainly watch far more YouTube than BBC output and I’m older generation. Far fewer younger people watch it.


    Interesting from the BBC call. Hopefully the license fee is not long for this world.


    ‘ I have now heard audio from the BBC internal call and wanted to clarify Rhodri Talfan Davies' quote. He actually said: "We have a funding model at the moment that is unsustainable and is reaching the end of its sell-by date."’



    https://x.com/jake_kanter/status/2044434249537683896?s=61
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,237
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    BBC Children's programming was excellent, they gave it a dedicated Channel and then killed it.

    BBC Sport was the envy of the World, they've slowly lost every major a sport, many popular nice ones and now focus on mind numbing snooker and darts, why, because it cheap and low cost to cocer

    BBC Politics and Current Affairs was once the envy of the world the World believed the BBC. It has declined over the past 20 years, especially so over the past 10 years, and is unwatchable under Robbie Gibb


    They have neutered local Radio and TV News.

    The drama is occasionally still excellent

    Specialised Radio Channels listenable.

    It's a dinosaur near extinction
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    scampi25 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
    I get almost all the content I need via YouTube. I also have Netflix and Prime but tbh I could manage without. The truth is the BBC is a giant Cnut raging against the tides of the times.
    I still consume some BBC TV content, I still pay the fee. Very little of that content, however, was made in the last decade.

    The various British museums are putting out some good factual work on low budgets without jetting around the world. The BBC could really learn from them and create more new works at a much lower price point.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,552
    edited April 15
    More reflective people I listen to in the USA are drawing increasingly on Dietrich Bonhoeffeur.

    I'm quite enamoured with Bonhoeffeur's Theory of Stupidity (and how it is more dangerous than evil). This is from his Letters and Papers from Prison. Someone summarising on Reddit.

    Key Points from Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity:-

    ▪︎ Stupidity is socially conditioned: It often emerges when people surrender their autonomy to group ideology or power structures, especially under authoritarian regimes.

    ▪︎ Stupidity resists correction: Logical arguments, facts, and protests are ineffective against it, unlike evil, which can be confronted and exposed.

    ▪︎ Stupid people believe they are right: They act with the conviction of righteousness, making them immune to self-critique or external critique.

    ▪︎ Stupidity is not the same as ignorance: It is not a lack of knowledge but the refusal or incapacity to think critically.

    Evil vs Stupidity:

    • Evil knows it is wrong, creating inner conflict and potential collapse.

    • Stupidity believes it is right, shielding itself completely.

    ▪︎ Slogans replace thought: The stupid person speaks in catchwords and slogans, not from personal reasoning, but from what has “taken possession” of them.

    ▪︎ Hope for overcoming stupidity: Bonhoeffer believed stupidity can only be overcome by liberation of the inner person and regaining personal responsibility, not by force or argument alone.


    Some more: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1lpty5u/bonhoeffer_on_stupidity_evil_still_relevant_today/
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    Brixian59 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    BBC Children's programming was excellent, they gave it a dedicated Channel and then killed it.

    BBC Sport was the envy of the World, they've slowly lost every major a sport, many popular nice ones and now focus on mind numbing snooker and darts, why, because it cheap and low cost to cocer

    BBC Politics and Current Affairs was once the envy of the world the World believed the BBC. It has declined over the past 20 years, especially so over the past 10 years, and is unwatchable under Robbie Gibb


    They have neutered local Radio and TV News.

    The drama is occasionally still excellent

    Specialised Radio Channels listenable.

    It's a dinosaur near extinction
    Pray tell me, as a lifelong darts fan, exactly what darts is shown on the BBC these days ?
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    Foss said:

    scampi25 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
    I get almost all the content I need via YouTube. I also have Netflix and Prime but tbh I could manage without. The truth is the BBC is a giant Cnut raging against the tides of the times.
    I still consume some BBC TV content, I still pay the fee. Very little of that content, however, was made in the last decade.

    The various British museums are putting out some good factual work on low budgets without jetting around the world. The BBC could really learn from them and create more new works at a much lower price point.
    The BBC has a massive archive it does little to exploit.

    True, there are massive gaps in the archive but there is still a colossal amount of good stuff in there.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,705
    "On one topic.."

    The ineffable cluelessness of JD.

    Vice President JD Vance on Iran:

    "I recognize that a lot of young voters don’t love the policy that we have on the Middle East… Don’t disengage because you disagree with the admin on one topic."

    https://x.com/amconmag/status/2044185228474740791
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,552
    edited April 15
    Have we noted that the previous Hungarian Government was funding CPAC ?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-hungarian-pm-says-government-was-funding-cpac-but-won-t-anymore/ar-AA20TFpq

    There may be a steady drip-drip of this.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,837
    scampi25 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
    I get almost all the content I need via YouTube. I also have Netflix and Prime but tbh I could manage without. The truth is the BBC is a giant Cnut raging against the tides of the times.
    One can criticise the BBC for all sorts of things but I am not sure "the truth is the BBC is a giant **** raging against the tides of times" is one of them.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,571
    Brixian59 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    BBC Children's programming was excellent, they gave it a dedicated Channel and then killed it.

    BBC Sport was the envy of the World, they've slowly lost every major a sport, many popular nice ones and now focus on mind numbing snooker and darts, why, because it cheap and low cost to cocer

    BBC Politics and Current Affairs was once the envy of the world the World believed the BBC. It has declined over the past 20 years, especially so over the past 10 years, and is unwatchable under Robbie Gibb


    They have neutered local Radio and TV News.

    The drama is occasionally still excellent

    Specialised Radio Channels listenable.

    It's a dinosaur near extinction
    I agree with most of this. I wouldn't say the BBC 'focus on snooker and darts' though. I'd say they provide as much snooker as always and rather less darts - but because their coverage of everything else has declined I can see that it feels like it!

    I love BBC Radio 6 but it is less good than it was ten years ago - there has been a degree of dumbing down.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,398
    Nigelb said:

    "On one topic.."

    The ineffable cluelessness of JD.

    Vice President JD Vance on Iran:

    "I recognize that a lot of young voters don’t love the policy that we have on the Middle East… Don’t disengage because you disagree with the admin on one topic."

    https://x.com/amconmag/status/2044185228474740791

    "We are probably going to militarily draft you but why not focus on the end of diversity hiring in the budget office?"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818
    LDs will be able to relate to this (in reaction to yet more suggestions of Reform/Con combining.

    The right falling to the same delusion the left has had for decades - 'we need a progressive alliance, there is a natural left-wing majority' was always the cry and never true

    Different parties are different parties for a reason

    https://nitter.poast.org/HugoGye/status/2044354065119724018#m
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818
    Nigelb said:

    "On one topic.."

    The ineffable cluelessness of JD.

    Vice President JD Vance on Iran:

    "I recognize that a lot of young voters don’t love the policy that we have on the Middle East… Don’t disengage because you disagree with the admin on one topic."

    https://x.com/amconmag/status/2044185228474740791

    I'd argue that demonstrates he is slightly less clueless than most of his colleagues - he's actually admitting some voters won't love their policy, he isn't just denying it and saying everyone loves it, or claiming it is only radical left lunatics who don't like it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    BBC Children's programming was excellent, they gave it a dedicated Channel and then killed it.

    BBC Sport was the envy of the World, they've slowly lost every major a sport, many popular nice ones and now focus on mind numbing snooker and darts, why, because it cheap and low cost to cocer

    BBC Politics and Current Affairs was once the envy of the world the World believed the BBC. It has declined over the past 20 years, especially so over the past 10 years, and is unwatchable under Robbie Gibb


    They have neutered local Radio and TV News.

    The drama is occasionally still excellent

    Specialised Radio Channels listenable.

    It's a dinosaur near extinction
    I agree with most of this. I wouldn't say the BBC 'focus on snooker and darts' though. I'd say they provide as much snooker as always and rather less darts - but because their coverage of everything else has declined I can see that it feels like it!

    I love BBC Radio 6 but it is less good than it was ten years ago - there has been a degree of dumbing down.
    What darts do they provide ?

    They used to show the BDO but it went to C4, before COVID, before it folded and they showed a seniors comp a few years back, nothing since.

    Sky and ITV are the home of darts and very good at it they are too.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219

    scampi25 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
    I get almost all the content I need via YouTube. I also have Netflix and Prime but tbh I could manage without. The truth is the BBC is a giant Cnut raging against the tides of the times.
    One can criticise the BBC for all sorts of things but I am not sure "the truth is the BBC is a giant **** raging against the tides of times" is one of them.
    It is when it comes to the funding model.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818
    Cookie said:

    Because I am a nerd, I have spent a happy fifteen minutes looking through the list of local election candidates for Trafford. Do you remember the days when most wards had three candidates at most? I remember lamenting the lack of choice, not really thinking that the expansion of choice would be almost exclusively made up of parties I would have less intention of voting for than I did for the original three. But I suppose we should celebrate the broadening of democracy.
    Anyway, all Trafford wards have at least five candidates (Con – strangely branded as ‘local conservative’ in wards in the northern half of Trafford – Grn, LD, Lab, Ref), with Advance making it up to six in 6 wards out of 21, a smattering of independents, and the SDP standing a lone candidate, though not in my ward.
    There is quiet enjoyment to be had from picturing the candidates from their names alone: Bowdon ward, for example, offers us Ron Hutton of Advance and Ludo Tolhurst-Cleaver of the Lib Dems, while Brooklands offers John Spencer Churchill for Reform and Renate Aspden for the Green Party, all of which are surely names created by AI trying to come up with likely-sounding names for those parties. Similarly the Reform candidates Billy Burke, Bill Sumner and Charles William Oliver Rear, the Green Party’s Centaine Wendy Parker, the Lib Dems’ Will Frass, the Conservative Party’s Rupert Owen Kelly and the Labour Party’s Seth Champion (though AI appears here to be suggesting a candidate for the Labour Party circa 1955).

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/trafford-council-local-elections-2026-33751246

    Great news (even if the choices may not be ones you will be tempted by). Love the names. We had a record numbers of candidates in Wiltshire last year, always good to have choice.

    It's one reason I don't believe doom and gloom about how politics is broken, which shocked a colleague who had pressed me on why I don't think citizen assemblies are a good idea (basically I think outside of particular rare issues things can be dealt with through our current systems, and assemblies presume that system cannot be trusted, which I don't think is true).

    On 'Local Conservatives' they were using that one a lot last year too, probably before then.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818
    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Battlebus said:

    Well at least someone likes him.


    I wonder what Trump replies to these wise words of Jesus?

    Errr, I think you will find it is Jesus who is listening to the Gospel according to Trump.
    What does Jesus know about making billions in crypto market manipulation? Exactly.
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    Ohio was the focus of a great political song written by Neil Young


    https://youtu.be/MN_9VqfVQ9c?si=8lUI40VMO7ihrNAV
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,528
    @cbsnews.com‬

    House Democrats unveiled articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, making serious allegations about his handling of the war in Iran and his leadership more broadly.

    https://bsky.app/profile/cbsnews.com/post/3mjkdry23lw2u
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,380

    The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?

    Reagan was probably the last non-churchgoing president to claim to be religious. Ironically, he beat a man who was so Christian that he taught Sunday School from the White House.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,448
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.
    Well they are trying to bring YouTube into the remit of the BBC license fee. (Don't understand the argument, but that's what I've read.)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,525
    Trump and the GOP's problem is that inflation has fallen but voters want prices to fall.

    This problem is not unique to the USA.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,516
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.
    They should bring back Grandstand, covering a bunch of minor sports desperate for TV to turn up.

    It should be actual public service TV, doing what the market won’t.
    Exactly: that's the kind of public service programming that the BBC should be doing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818

    scampi25 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
    I get almost all the content I need via YouTube. I also have Netflix and Prime but tbh I could manage without. The truth is the BBC is a giant Cnut raging against the tides of the times.
    One can criticise the BBC for all sorts of things but I am not sure "the truth is the BBC is a giant **** raging against the tides of times" is one of them.
    There probably needs to be a paring down. I fear it cannot compete in the way it seems to want to, and the funding will become ever more unpopular if that happens.
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    AnneJGP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.
    Well they are trying to bring YouTube into the remit of the BBC license fee. (Don't understand the argument, but that's what I've read.)
    One suspects the core of the argument is that, should the BBC’s income continue to decline, they’d have to find new jobs.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,887
    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/2044450075921789075

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    RFM: 26% (+1)
    GRN: 20% (=)
    CON: 17% (=)
    LAB: 16% (=)
    LDM: 11% (=)
    SNP: 3% (=)

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 15 Apr.
    Changes w/ 8 Apr
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818

    Trump and the GOP's problem is that inflation has fallen but voters want prices to fall.

    This problem is not unique to the USA.

    "Things are rising but more slowly" is a difficult sell, even when it is reasonable.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 916

    Is 25th Section 4 even an option? IANAL but I don't think it is.

    Section 4 enables Congress by law to provide an alternative to the Cabinet to support the Veep in ousting the President.

    The problem is Congress has not passed any law to do so, and to pass a law to do so requires going through full legislative procedures . . . which could be vetoed by the President.

    So would require not just Vance to turn on Trump, but a two thirds majority in the Senate to override a veto too.

    If two thirds of the Senate wanted him gone, impeachment would not need Vance.

    Two thirds in both the House and the Senate to override the veto. Same as needed for removing the President under section 4. But if such majorities existed, the commission thing could be used to take the cabinet out of the equation.

    You're right that impeachment is easier, and I'm sure plenty of high crimes and misdemeanors could be found if they actually wanted to.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,525
    How many of Biden's industrial investments have now become actual factories employing people ?

    Dem candidates should now do what Harris didn't and include them in their electoral campaign contrasting Biden's action with Trump's talk.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    edited April 15
    Bit of regional polling. ITV got More in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818
    Is this actually correct? Because that would be pretty barmy.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got Mire in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    Labour would certainly take that I think, as would the Tories. I thought Indies were poised to sweep Birmingham though?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,525
    kle4 said:

    Trump and the GOP's problem is that inflation has fallen but voters want prices to fall.

    This problem is not unique to the USA.

    "Things are rising but more slowly" is a difficult sell, even when it is reasonable.
    Voters want the prices of ten, twenty or even fifty years ago but the pay, pensions and benefits of now.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,439
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Battlebus said:

    Well at least someone likes him.


    I wonder what Trump replies to these wise words of Jesus?

    Errr, I think you will find it is Jesus who is listening to the Gospel according to Trump.
    Not according to his Papal representative on earth.

    Vance was notably less critical of the Pope, saying he was entitled to give his views on the issues of the day but should not get too involved in politics. As he knows Roman Catholics are key swing voters in the US, voting for Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020 and Trump again in 2024. As well as being Roman Catholic himself he also needs their votes in 2028
    As an informed catholic Vance knows he is dissembling. He draws for the pope a distinction between morality and politics as if the pope should stick to being kind and not stealing from the shops, while politics is outside the moral domain when it kills multitudes of small children. Vance knows perfectly well that catholicism more or less invented the morality of the just war.

    Very little in politics is completely outside questions of 'what is right and what is wrong'. The stuff of ethical thinking both religious and secular.

  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got More in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    @FeersumEnjineeya what do you think of this ?

    I was expecting a Green/Gaza Indy coalition.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 61,142
    kle4 said:

    Is this actually correct? Because that would be pretty barmy.

    They’d rather people die than partnering with a … shudders…. corporation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,705
    kle4 said:

    Trump and the GOP's problem is that inflation has fallen but voters want prices to fall.

    This problem is not unique to the USA.

    "Things are rising but more slowly" is a difficult sell, even when it is reasonable.
    As it was for Biden.
    Inflation was falling dramatically at the end of his term (and continued to do so for a while after Trump took office).

    The Democrats of course but zero credit for that.

    It will be no different this time (except the trend is for now upwards, thanks to Iran).
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    kle4 said:

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got Mire in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    Labour would certainly take that I think, as would the Tories. I thought Indies were poised to sweep Birmingham though?
    The ITV coverage acknowledges the trouble modelling the various indy groups......
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    kle4 said:

    Is this actually correct? Because that would be pretty barmy.

    Yes, it’s true and not the only instance.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,439
    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Battlebus said:

    Well at least someone likes him.


    I wonder what Trump replies to these wise words of Jesus?

    Errr, I think you will find it is Jesus who is listening to the Gospel according to Trump.
    Say it's not so.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,705
    I quite enjoyed the irony of the Mail asking the same question on Europe again and again until they get the right answer...

    The Daily Mail has now twice reset this poll to zero because people keep voting to rejoin. It now stands at 82% rejoin so expect another reset very soon.
    https://x.com/archer_rs/status/2044388754303988202
  • Don’t know about you, but I’m here


  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,887
    kle4 said:

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got Mire in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    Labour would certainly take that I think, as would the Tories. I thought Indies were poised to sweep Birmingham though?
    You've captured a good typo from @wooliedyed there. "Mire in Common" describes our situation perfectly.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,888
    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    Noomy now, gloomy when the sun sets and doomy as you finally walk up it in the dark.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,255

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got More in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    Considering they bankrupted the council and let rubbish pile up, that ain't bad. But that's cults for you.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    Sandwell is nice this time of year
  • Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    Sandwell is nice this time of year
    I’m on a foodie road trip. I just had the best hot smoked salmon of my life from this place

    https://www.northcoastsmokehouse.com/
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,439
    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    That's strange. I'm here too.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,151
    Scott_xP said:

    MattW said:

    More reflective people I listen to in the USA are drawing increasingly on Dietrich Bonhoeffeur.

    I'm quite enamoured with Bonhoeffeur's Theory of Stupidity (and how it is more dangerous than evil).

    Marina Hyde's column today

    @pickardje.bsky.social‬

    glorious intro from Marina Hyde:

    "You hear such a lot from Maga Republicans about how liberals think Trump voters are stupid. But not nearly enough about the far more salient point: that Donald Trump thinks Trump voters are stupid."

    https://bsky.app/profile/pickardje.bsky.social/post/3mjkacs3gmk2h
    Is Carlo Cipolla's pamphlet drawn from Bonhoeffeur then?

    Marina Hyde is one of the only things worth going to the Guardian website for...
    Those halcyon days when there was Harry Pearson on sport, decent recipes, Bell and Rowson in tandem and you could leave the saturday magazine in the bathroom without a curious child asking you what polyamory or S&M dungeons are...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,705
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    That's strange. I'm here too.
    Are you sure ?
    Leon appears to be telling you he's on a road to nowhere.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,398
    carnforth said:

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got More in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    Considering they bankrupted the council and let rubbish pile up, that ain't bad. But that's cults for you.

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    37m
    Sorry, but this poll is complete and utter rubbish. There will not be only be a single Independent councillor in Birmingham after next month's elections. I genuinely can't believe ITV broadcast this.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,398
    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    20m
    It's not difficult. The poll is 100% wrong. There's going to be a major breakthrough by Independents in Birmingham. It's going to be one of the stories of election night. How can you seriously broadcast a poll that predicts Independents will only win a single seat.

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2044460821493817534
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,818

    carnforth said:

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got More in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    Considering they bankrupted the council and let rubbish pile up, that ain't bad. But that's cults for you.

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    37m
    Sorry, but this poll is complete and utter rubbish. There will not be only be a single Independent councillor in Birmingham after next month's elections. I genuinely can't believe ITV broadcast this.
    Gauging independents will be very difficult, but it is a difficult to believe poll.

    I wonder if there is a metric somewhere on how likely it is for Independents to be elected based on the number of Independent candidates there are - obviously it depends very much on the nature of the Independent, but if you have lots presumably the chances of some being very plausible increased in a somewhat predictable way. In which case is there a tipping point - like in Cornwall they traditionally have high numbers of Independents.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    Sandwell is nice this time of year
    I’m on a foodie road trip. I just had the best hot smoked salmon of my life from this place

    https://www.northcoastsmokehouse.com/
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    Sandwell is nice this time of year
    I’m on a foodie road trip. I just had the best hot smoked salmon of my life from this place

    https://www.northcoastsmokehouse.com/
    Looks stunning.

    The weather is better than here in The North East
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,439
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    That's strange. I'm here too.
    Are you sure ?
    Leon appears to be telling you he's on a road to nowhere.
    Sure. I'm here. Not so sure about Leon. Possibly he is there instead. I'll check.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,888
    Mahmood promising action on the BBC website. There's been a lot of that from her. And hats off for her well-targeted and determined promises. It strike me though that absolutely none of this has been delivered.

    It's much the Starmer government's theme. Promise today what nobody will notice that you've failed to deliver tomorrow.

    To be fair the Tories were great players of this idea too, and most certainly it was a Tory idea stolen and perfected by Starmer.

    But, you know, as voters and PB posters* we're not numpties.

    (* The list of those PB posters that are numpties has been mislaid in the mail. RM expect to find it before Xmas, although they didn't say which one)
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,603
    edited April 15

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    20m
    It's not difficult. The poll is 100% wrong. There's going to be a major breakthrough by Independents in Birmingham. It's going to be one of the stories of election night. How can you seriously broadcast a poll that predicts Independents will only win a single seat.

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2044460821493817534

    So a pollster simply shouldn't publish a poll because a political commentator reckons it's wrong?

    Surely pollsters need to be transparent about their methodology, carry out their polls, and tell us what they say whether it "smells" right or not? If they turn out to be wrong, we can all criticise their methodology later.

    Dan Hodges should frankly be delighted about a pollster publishing a poll where he thinks he knows better. If he turns out to be right and the pollster wrong, then I am sure he will loudly let us know how much better an insightful commentator like himself knows than pollsters carrying out surveys from their ivory towers. If the poll wasn't published, he'd not have that opportunity.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,219
    kle4 said:

    carnforth said:

    Bit of regional polling. ITV got More in Common to poll Birmingham for the LEs

    🌹 LAB: 32 (-33) — 23%
    ➡️ RFM: 26 (+26) — 22%
    🌳 CON: 25 (+2) — 18%
    🔶 LDM: 10 (-2) — 10%
    🌍 GRN: 7 (+2) — 16%
    👤 IND: 1 (+1) — 11%

    https://x.com/i/status/2044445537676529703

    Considering they bankrupted the council and let rubbish pile up, that ain't bad. But that's cults for you.

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    37m
    Sorry, but this poll is complete and utter rubbish. There will not be only be a single Independent councillor in Birmingham after next month's elections. I genuinely can't believe ITV broadcast this.
    Gauging independents will be very difficult, but it is a difficult to believe poll.

    I wonder if there is a metric somewhere on how likely it is for Independents to be elected based on the number of Independent candidates there are - obviously it depends very much on the nature of the Independent, but if you have lots presumably the chances of some being very plausible increased in a somewhat predictable way. In which case is there a tipping point - like in Cornwall they traditionally have high numbers of Independents.
    I don’t believe it at all. Too few Green, too few Indy. Too many Labour and Reform.

    But I’d be interested in Feersum’s take and have tagged him.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,528
    ‪Losing a war to Iran AND The Pope

    @christopherjhale.bsky.social‬

    BREAKING: The U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine just issued a formal statement defending Pope Leo XIV's teaching authority on just war doctrine — less than twelve hours after JD Vance told a Turning Point USA crowd the pope should “be careful” talking theology.

    https://bsky.app/profile/christopherjhale.bsky.social/post/3mjkezzu7dc2w
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,528
    Let's check in the TOTAL BLOCKADE, NO EXCEPTIONS

    @lisaocarroll

    Trump says he is opening the Strait of Hormuz for China…. And Xi will hug him

    Is it because China accused the US of “dangerous and irresponsible” behaviour re the strait of Hormuz, and has vowed to retaliate against the threat of US tariffs.

    https://x.com/lisaocarroll/status/2044462228204638681?s=20

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,811
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    That's strange. I'm here too.
    It's a different here. His here is different to your here. Tomorrow his here will be different to his here today, but it still won't be the same here as your here now, it'll be a different different here.
  • algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    Don’t know about you, but I’m here


    That's strange. I'm here too.
    No you’re not. You’re there. I’m HERE

    Mind you everyone else is THERE as well, and not here, so it must be pretty crowded there. Sympathies
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,882
    Frank Booth asked: "The strange thing is Trump seems the least Christian president the US has had. Does he even claim to go to church?"

    His third wedding was in a church. Bill and Hillary Clinton were guests. But I don't know of any visits since then.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,811

    Tweet of the day. Really good point.

    Theo Bertram
    @theobertram

    So many new councils are going to be elected on a mandate for Gaza/immigration/getting rid of Starmer/a 10:1 earnings ratio, and then actually be responsible for something completely different, for which they have no clear mandate, namely funding and managing social care.

    https://x.com/theobertram/status/2044417534040957143

    What is the Ober Tram? Is there an Unter Tram?
  • glwglw Posts: 10,923
    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.


    YouTube now has a greater real-world monthly reach than the BBC.
    Something that anyone who bothered to read the Ofcom Communication Market Reports would have seen coming a mile off. Nothing that is happening to the BBC is surprising, you could have predicted almost all of it 10 years ago. What is surprising is how little the BBC has done to change and grow, and instead it's ended up in a situation where it now needs to cut to maintain basic services, and the legitimacy of its funding is routinely doubted by many.

    The BBC if it had grasped the nettle might have had a chance to become a British/European Netflix like enterprise, raking in the cash, making more programmes than ever, able to properly fund news and current affairs, and able to keep UK costs manageable. Fat chance of anything like that happening now.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,695
    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Been cutting 10% of workforce

    No doubt these wasters will get a cracking pay off and pension.

    Abolish the license fee.

    https://x.com/skynews/status/2044411774934421775?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.

    Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
    Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.

    They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.

    I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
    I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.

    The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.

    That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local radio.

    But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
    I have never understood why the BBC competed in ratings wars and felt the need to have highest paid stars, such as Lineker. If those stars want more money they can go elsewhere. Lots of people are able to present Match of the Day. Get fresh talent in. Forget ratings - they are pointless in streaming terms anyway. We don't all sit down at the same time to watch the last episode of To the Manor Born, for instance.
    It's not even clear to me why the BBC is spending taxpayer's money on bidding up the cost of Premier League highlights, when those same highlights can be viewed on YouTube for nothing.
    They should bring back Grandstand, covering a bunch of minor sports desperate for TV to turn up.

    It should be actual public service TV, doing what the market won’t.
    My own view, in a minority of one, would be that the BBC should run a telly service with exactly one national channel, mostly covering news but with some outstanding new content in various fields, and with the capacity to turn into rolling news at important and critical times; the vision service can also run all their back catalogue on iplayer.

    But the focus should be on radio (transmission + internet) where very high quality is very cheap compared with TV. Radio/sound is where the heart of public service broadcasting should be. Nearly all the vision+ sound stuff is done better by others.
    I agree, but radio is also where some of the most egregious BBC salaries were exposed. It needs to be pared right back to R3, R4, R5L, perhaps a ‘new music’ channel, but definitely not R1 and R2 with £500k DJs working eight hours a week.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,923
    kle4 said:

    Is this actually correct? Because that would be pretty barmy.

    Pretty barmy is all the rage in 2026.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,192
    edited April 15
    glw said:

    kle4 said:

    Is this actually correct? Because that would be pretty barmy.

    Pretty barmy is all the rage in 2026.
    Maximise profit? Under a capitalist system? How surprising.
This discussion has been closed.