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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
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.
Worth noting the More In Common poll for Birmingham has simply applied UNS to come up with the seat predictions which is basically useless.
Another for the "rubbish" polls is the J L Partners predictions which are also palpable nonsense.
Why normally sensible pollsters do such silly things as seat predictions or MRPs for local contests without the detailed local knowledge is beyond me. I've yet to see anyone do a proper prediction for Newham - I imagine I'll have to do it and I'm much cheaper than YouGov. Some will scoff I'm not a member of the BPC but having seen some of the offerings from those who are, I'm not sure it's valuable.
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.
R1 and R2 are not worlds I comprehend, but I should think quite a lot of commercial outfits could cope with whatever is the modern equivalent of using a turntable + chatting about stuff. Probably there are people on YouTube who do it for fun.
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.
Yes, but people have ALWAYS used the otherwise frankly unexciting local elections to make national political points. What proportion of voters support a party different from their usual choice because they approve of their policy on, say, bin collection? In fact, I can't remember the last time I read a local election leaflet proposing something unusual in local services.
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
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.
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.
Radio presenters are paid at market rates. It is quite easy to see if listenership drops when you go on holiday, and how you fare against others on the same station, and other stations in the same time slot. It's generally just one person so success or failure is down to him or her.
The reason Chris Evans is paid a fortune by Virgin is that everyone saw he drew a bigger audience even than Terry Wogan when he took over from him, and that listenership dropped again once he left.
You might not like Chris Evans but that's besides the point. And it is the same for every other radio presenter.
Worrying if it has kicked off - but have our police forces learned nothing since last year and Southport? Right wingers will fill the information void if the police stay silent
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.
It's a view. Personally I like the absence of adverts so much that 95% of my watching is the BBC, and they seem to me impressively varied. I'd be disappointed if they turned into the Obscure Minorities Channel.
Worth noting the More In Common poll for Birmingham has simply applied UNS to come up with the seat predictions which is basically useless.
Another for the "rubbish" polls is the J L Partners predictions which are also palpable nonsense.
Why normally sensible pollsters do such silly things as seat predictions or MRPs for local contests without the detailed local knowledge is beyond me. I've yet to see anyone do a proper prediction for Newham - I imagine I'll have to do it and I'm much cheaper than YouGov. Some will scoff I'm not a member of the BPC but having seen some of the offerings from those who are, I'm not sure it's valuable.
The 'interesting' thing with JLP is the raw average of the %s in each English council comes to Ref 25 Lab 21 Con 20 LD 13 Grn 13 which is very close to MiCs latest national poll. Theres a grand unifying polling conspiracy theory in there somewhere.
JLP lost me with Tories on better than 2022 in Norwich yet a third of 2021 % in Norfolk. Wipeout in Suffolk but winning Ipswich.
Worth noting the More In Common poll for Birmingham has simply applied UNS to come up with the seat predictions which is basically useless.
Another for the "rubbish" polls is the J L Partners predictions which are also palpable nonsense.
Why normally sensible pollsters do such silly things as seat predictions or MRPs for local contests without the detailed local knowledge is beyond me. I've yet to see anyone do a proper prediction for Newham - I imagine I'll have to do it and I'm much cheaper than YouGov. Some will scoff I'm not a member of the BPC but having seen some of the offerings from those who are, I'm not sure it's valuable.
The 'interesting' thing with JLP is the raw average of the %s in each English council comes to Ref 25 Lab 21 Con 20 LD 13 Grn 13 which is very close to MiCs latest national poll. Theres a grand unifying polling conspiracy theory in there somewhere.
JLP lost me with Tories on better than 2022 in Norwich yet a third of 2021 % in Norfolk. Wipeout in Suffolk but winning Ipswich.
MRP and locals..... not sure they mix well
The YouGov sub sample for England has Ref 23, Con 20, Green 19, Lab 18, LD 13 so in the same parish for all the Labour/Green split seems very different.
I'm sticking for now with my initial thought of 1000 Labour losses and 500 Conservative losses.
In Newham, where I'm not currently, the Greens have tried to discredit the Labour Mayoral candidate with some ancient and completely unfounded claims and that could well backfire.
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.
Radio presenters are paid at market rates. It is quite easy to see if listenership drops when you go on holiday, and how you fare against others on the same station, and other stations in the same time slot. It's generally just one person so success or failure is down to him or her.
The reason Chris Evans is paid a fortune by Virgin is that everyone saw he drew a bigger audience even than Terry Wogan when he took over from him, and that listenership dropped again once he left.
You might not like Chris Evans but that's besides the point. And it is the same for every other radio presenter.
Which is fine for a commercial station who need the biggest number of listeners to justify ad revenue but the BBC don’t need that. The last couple of weeks or so they had Gary Davies covering Sc*tt Mills and Mark Goodier for Vernon Kay. Now I’m showing my age by saying it was great having Davies and Goodier on as they remind me of childhood but they are still so much better to listen to, and don’t spend the show talking about their own lives like we care. I’m sure if the bbc made their positions permanent they wouldn’t worry about being on £120k rather than £500k however the BBC have made a Rod for their own back by paying presenters crazy money for reasons that probably aren’t needed.
If you are a good presenter who is upcoming then you would take a BBC job on less as it gives you higher profile and then a commercial station can come in for you.
Military planning for a possible Pentagon-led operation in Cuba is quietly ramping up, in case President Donald Trump gives an order to intervene there, USA TODAY has learned.
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.
I don't like the word mandate, but whilst the point is broadly true there are only rare partisan choices in local government.
There are options to choose, and competent leaders make a difference, but there isn't a uniquely LD or Reform or Indy approach to potholes and adult social care, they will pick differently on different areas.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
I like to listen to music. I don’t want my listening interrupted by the inane witterings of a DJ. Therefore I don’t listen to music on the radio. If I want to listen to current affairs I want the facts presented impartially, without being dumbed down. I like to make my own conclusions based on the evidence. I don’t want the presenter to continually interrupt or try for a gotcha moment. Am I unusual?
Worth noting the More In Common poll for Birmingham has simply applied UNS to come up with the seat predictions which is basically useless.
Another for the "rubbish" polls is the J L Partners predictions which are also palpable nonsense.
Why normally sensible pollsters do such silly things as seat predictions or MRPs for local contests without the detailed local knowledge is beyond me. I've yet to see anyone do a proper prediction for Newham - I imagine I'll have to do it and I'm much cheaper than YouGov. Some will scoff I'm not a member of the BPC but having seen some of the offerings from those who are, I'm not sure it's valuable.
The 'interesting' thing with JLP is the raw average of the %s in each English council comes to Ref 25 Lab 21 Con 20 LD 13 Grn 13 which is very close to MiCs latest national poll. Theres a grand unifying polling conspiracy theory in there somewhere.
JLP lost me with Tories on better than 2022 in Norwich yet a third of 2021 % in Norfolk. Wipeout in Suffolk but winning Ipswich.
MRP and locals..... not sure they mix well
The YouGov sub sample for England has Ref 23, Con 20, Green 19, Lab 18, LD 13 so in the same parish for all the Labour/Green split seems very different.
I'm sticking for now with my initial thought of 1000 Labour losses and 500 Conservative losses.
In Newham, where I'm not currently, the Greens have tried to discredit the Labour Mayoral candidate with some ancient and completely unfounded claims and that could well backfire.
I guess both Lab and Con would just about settle for 1000/500. 'Not great, not terrible' as they say in Chernobyl
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.
Radio presenters are paid at market rates. It is quite easy to see if listenership drops when you go on holiday, and how you fare against others on the same station, and other stations in the same time slot. It's generally just one person so success or failure is down to him or her.
The reason Chris Evans is paid a fortune by Virgin is that everyone saw he drew a bigger audience even than Terry Wogan when he took over from him, and that listenership dropped again once he left.
You might not like Chris Evans but that's besides the point. And it is the same for every other radio presenter.
Yes, but my point is that the BBC shouldn’t be chasing ratings with ‘name’ presenters, they should be playing new music.
No-one at the BBC should be giving a sh!t about whether their breakfast show gets more listeners that Virgin or Capital or Talk. They should be doing something different.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
I like to listen to music. I don’t want my listening interrupted by the inane witterings of a DJ. Therefore I don’t listen to music on the radio. If I want to listen to current affairs I want the facts presented impartially, without being dumbed down. I like to make my own conclusions based on the evidence. I don’t want the presenter to continually interrupt or try for a gotcha moment. Am I unusual?
I doubt it. There’s a reason Spotify has done so well.
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.
Yes, but people have ALWAYS used the otherwise frankly unexciting local elections to make national political points. What proportion of voters support a party different from their usual choice because they approve of their policy on, say, bin collection? In fact, I can't remember the last time I read a local election leaflet proposing something unusual in local services.
Quite so
Support development in the right place/oppose inappropriate development Keep council tax low/ensure good value for money/ cut waste Fix potholes Listen to people.
That's usually about it. Sometimes you are lucky and there are some specific things.
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
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.
I'm not sure it's that good a point in all honesty.
Certainly in my part of the world, both the Greens and the Newham Independents are talking about local issues and it's interesting to see a convergence between them on some local ideas and policies.
When I spoke to the NIP Mayoral Candidate, Mehmood Mirza, and pointed out his ideas on freezing the council tax for example were fiscally incoherent, he didn't disagree. His response was he would lobby the Government for more money - I can't see the Government ponying up the money to please him and he will of course blame them when they don't.
As for social care for both adults and vulnerable children, until central Government acknowledges it's a national problem requiring a national solution it will continue to erode local finances. As is often the case, Labour seems set to continue the Conservative policy of inaction.
Unfortunately, the costs of social care have risen as to undermine the fiscal management of even well-run councils. It's one of the many consequences of an ageing population for even if the proportion of those requiring specialist care (especially dementia care) isn't rising, the actual numbers are going up.
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.
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.
Not that informed a Catholic. If Vance were, he would know the Pope gets to say what's what on this stuff. You might disagree but he's the Pope and you're not.
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.
I'm not sure it's that good a point in all honesty.
Certainly in my part of the world, both the Greens and the Newham Independents are talking about local issues and it's interesting to see a convergence between them on some local ideas and policies.
When I spoke to the NIP Mayoral Candidate, Mehmood Mirza, and pointed out his ideas on freezing the council tax for example were fiscally incoherent, he didn't disagree. His response was he would lobby the Government for more money - I can't see the Government ponying up the money to please him and he will of course blame them when they don't.
As for social care for both adults and vulnerable children, until central Government acknowledges it's a national problem requiring a national solution it will continue to erode local finances. As is often the case, Labour seems set to continue the Conservative policy of inaction.
Unfortunately, the costs of social care have risen as to undermine the fiscal management of even well-run councils. It's one of the many consequences of an ageing population for even if the proportion of those requiring specialist care (especially dementia care) isn't rising, the actual numbers are going up.
It's a mess, though the candidate's response was still crap even on its merits as it doesn't explain why vote him not someone else.
All the candidates will lobby the government for more cash, it's about the only thing that unites many councils.
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
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.
It's a view. Personally I like the absence of adverts so much that 95% of my watching is the BBC, and they seem to me impressively varied. I'd be disappointed if they turned into the Obscure Minorities Channel.
The quality of BBC output varies enormously. In Scotland we have the BBC Scotland channel, which is dire. Mostly repeats of second rate shows that will be on Iplayer anyway. Whereas, BBC Alba shows high quality and new programmes. It also has Eòrpa, which covers European current affairs in a way that I don’t think any other BBC channel does. Even though I’m not a Gaelic speaker, I probably watch it more than any other BBC channel.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
I like to listen to music. I don’t want my listening interrupted by the inane witterings of a DJ. Therefore I don’t listen to music on the radio. If I want to listen to current affairs I want the facts presented impartially, without being dumbed down. I like to make my own conclusions based on the evidence. I don’t want the presenter to continually interrupt or try for a gotcha moment. Am I unusual?
I doubt it. There’s a reason Spotify has done so well.
I’d agree too. I only listen to the radio if my wife is in the car with me. I used to like radio 2 but in the last few years it’s gone after a different audience and there’s no Beeb station that tries to cater for the old Radio 2 listenership.
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
If you think the Pope is too Woke, wait until you meet his boss!
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
If you think the Pope is too Woke, wait until you meet his boss!
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.
Radio presenters are paid at market rates. It is quite easy to see if listenership drops when you go on holiday, and how you fare against others on the same station, and other stations in the same time slot. It's generally just one person so success or failure is down to him or her.
The reason Chris Evans is paid a fortune by Virgin is that everyone saw he drew a bigger audience even than Terry Wogan when he took over from him, and that listenership dropped again once he left.
You might not like Chris Evans but that's besides the point. And it is the same for every other radio presenter.
No doubt this is all true, but does it not indicate that this form of entertainment does not need to be part of the BBC remit as it can be done brilliantly by the commercial sector?
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
If you think the Pope is too Woke, wait until you meet his boss!
Jesus was certainly Pope Francis's boss - I am not sure who Pope Leo's line manager is.
LIV Golf: Doubts over the future of Saudi-backed tour
Growing speculation suggests the breakaway venture could soon be shut down, with executives reportedly called to an emergency meeting in New York
Golfers on the LIV tour are bracing themselves for bombshell news amid rumours that the controversial Saudi-backed league could soon be shut down.
Players and agents remained in the dark about any impending big news when contacted by The Times, while LIV officials have so far not responded to requests for comment. Last week, the LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil was at Augusta for the Masters and gave no indication that the Saudi Public Investment Fund was about to pull the plug.
The LIV breakaway sent shockwaves through golf before its first event four years ago, with some of the game’s biggest names including Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Sergio García and Bryson DeChambeau leaving the established DP World and PGA tours to sign big-money deals. Jon Rahm, the two-times major winner and European Ryder Cup stalwart, joined them in 2024.
Mind you everyone else is THERE as well, and not here, so it must be pretty crowded there. Sympathies
Looks like a few pollarded Fagus sylvatica although they've been neglected for a while.
Not native to Ireland. Where's my chainsaw?
If we are going to write Samuel Beckett scripts we should be paid for it as we gather waiting for Godot under the Eo Mugna, the Bile Dathi, the Bile Tortan, the Craeb Uisnig, and the Eo Rossa.
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
Is it huzzah? My youngest isn't interested but the worsening revelations about Meta enabling exploitation of children with no consideration for anything other than profit, don't give me good feelings about children using social media.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
I like to listen to music. I don’t want my listening interrupted by the inane witterings of a DJ. Therefore I don’t listen to music on the radio. If I want to listen to current affairs I want the facts presented impartially, without being dumbed down. I like to make my own conclusions based on the evidence. I don’t want the presenter to continually interrupt or try for a gotcha moment. Am I unusual?
I doubt it. There’s a reason Spotify has done so well.
I’d agree too. I only listen to the radio if my wife is in the car with me. I used to like radio 2 but in the last few years it’s gone after a different audience and there’s no Beeb station that tries to cater for the old Radio 2 listenership.
It’s Spotify or Audible for me all the way,
With Friday Night is Music Night moving to R3 plus other bits of cultural shifting, R3 is quite often resembling the old Light programme, which ceased in 1967. I remember it well!
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
I increasingly view this like smoking.
It's just as addictive and just as bad for you.
Good parenting helps (aka blackmail works).
My biggest worry when it comes to social media is the over 60s.
I have so many friends worried their parents/grandparents have become radicalised.
The other day a friend says pretty much every day his grandma sends him bullshit stories.
Her latest fixation is that King Charles is a Muslim convert, last month Sir Keir Starmer passed a law making halal mandatory in the UK, around Christmas she was convinced Rothschilds & Soros are working to deliver the great replacement theory.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
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.
It’s not just Radio 1, there is R1 Xtra, Radio 1 Anthems and Radio 1 Dance which all have DJs and producers etc who cost money where there are commercial stations for these things and frankly most people will put on Spotify playlists to cover that sort of thing without inane DJs wittering away.
I like to listen to music. I don’t want my listening interrupted by the inane witterings of a DJ. Therefore I don’t listen to music on the radio. If I want to listen to current affairs I want the facts presented impartially, without being dumbed down. I like to make my own conclusions based on the evidence. I don’t want the presenter to continually interrupt or try for a gotcha moment. Am I unusual?
I doubt it. There’s a reason Spotify has done so well.
I’d agree too. I only listen to the radio if my wife is in the car with me. I used to like radio 2 but in the last few years it’s gone after a different audience and there’s no Beeb station that tries to cater for the old Radio 2 listenership.
It’s Spotify or Audible for me all the way,
With Friday Night is Music Night moving to R3 plus other bits of cultural shifting, R3 is quite often resembling the old Light programme, which ceased in 1967. I remember it well!
My earliest memory is from June 68 so that one passed me by.
FPT - I suspect social media has a large part to play in the radicalisation of both young men and young women, and in different directions.
It really does need heavily reining in, or it'll be our downfall.
From this I wonder three things. We have wrecked the word 'radical' which is a piece of verbal vandalism, especially as deliciously it truly shares an origin with the word 'radish'.
For those over about 15 (and perhaps those under) social media is will not and cannot be reined in by authority. It is here to stay and the basics of free speech does the rest.
A different shift in viewpoint is required: Young men and young women, like everyone else, are responsible for their thoughts, words and deeds and are free to be as radical or unradical as they like within the rule of law and have to take the consequences of their choices. Without such a frame learning and development cannot take place in order to grow wisdom. They cannot be protected from themselves or the wicked world. The world of bans and trigger warnings (university courses!!) is a frightening warning.
LIV Golf: Doubts over the future of Saudi-backed tour
Growing speculation suggests the breakaway venture could soon be shut down, with executives reportedly called to an emergency meeting in New York
Golfers on the LIV tour are bracing themselves for bombshell news amid rumours that the controversial Saudi-backed league could soon be shut down.
Players and agents remained in the dark about any impending big news when contacted by The Times, while LIV officials have so far not responded to requests for comment. Last week, the LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil was at Augusta for the Masters and gave no indication that the Saudi Public Investment Fund was about to pull the plug.
The LIV breakaway sent shockwaves through golf before its first event four years ago, with some of the game’s biggest names including Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Sergio García and Bryson DeChambeau leaving the established DP World and PGA tours to sign big-money deals. Jon Rahm, the two-times major winner and European Ryder Cup stalwart, joined them in 2024.
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
I increasingly view this like smoking.
It's just as addictive and just as bad for you.
Starmer apparently wants to wait 3 months for the consultation before deciding
Good.
(FWIW, a ban on under-16s is probably either too much or not enough. But if there's a consultation, it's absurd to do anything without seeing what that throws up.)
The JLP MRP for Holyrood in the Telegraph has the Scottish Greens standing in every constituency, so factor that into any expectations you have for its accuracy
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
I increasingly view this like smoking.
It's just as addictive and just as bad for you.
Good parenting helps (aka blackmail works).
My biggest worry when it comes to social media is the over 60s.
I have so many friends worried their parents/grandparents have become radicalised.
The other day a friend says pretty much every day his grandma sends him bullshit stories.
Her latest fixation is that King Charles is a Muslim convert, last month Sir Keir Starmer passed a law making halal mandatory in the UK, around Christmas she was convinced Rothschilds & Soros are working to deliver the great replacement theory.
She used to be lovely.
It's a problem across society, but we should start with vulnerable developing children in puberty.
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
If you think the Pope is too Woke, wait until you meet his boss!
Jesus was certainly Pope Francis's boss - I am not sure who Pope Leo's line manager is.
Best if you try to ignore the Sermon on the Mount.
The JLP MRP for Holyrood in the Telegraph has the Scottish Greens standing in every constituency, so factor that into any expectations you have for its accuracy
It also has the SNP winning 58 FPTP (ok, seems likeky) and 9 list seats?! (Nope, no chance if they win 58 fptps given their list % is only about 30% here)
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.
Radio presenters are paid at market rates. It is quite easy to see if listenership drops when you go on holiday, and how you fare against others on the same station, and other stations in the same time slot. It's generally just one person so success or failure is down to him or her.
The reason Chris Evans is paid a fortune by Virgin is that everyone saw he drew a bigger audience even than Terry Wogan when he took over from him, and that listenership dropped again once he left.
You might not like Chris Evans but that's besides the point. And it is the same for every other radio presenter.
Yes, but my point is that the BBC shouldn’t be chasing ratings with ‘name’ presenters, they should be playing new music.
No-one at the BBC should be giving a sh!t about whether their breakfast show gets more listeners that Virgin or Capital or Talk. They should be doing something different.
just because we own the BBC doesn't mean it shouldn't also be commercial. Are you some kind of communist?
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
I increasingly view this like smoking.
It's just as addictive and just as bad for you.
Good parenting helps (aka blackmail works).
My biggest worry when it comes to social media is the over 60s.
I have so many friends worried their parents/grandparents have become radicalised.
The other day a friend says pretty much every day his grandma sends him bullshit stories.
Her latest fixation is that King Charles is a Muslim convert, last month Sir Keir Starmer passed a law making halal mandatory in the UK, around Christmas she was convinced Rothschilds & Soros are working to deliver the great replacement theory.
She used to be lovely.
But one of the points of a free society is that it is no-one's right to predict or decide what its consequence will be. Without freedom to think false and stupid things, the freedom to think true and great things is also attenuated. Grandparents end up believing nonsense. They are not forced into this, it is the result of a series of choices and options. I accept it is sinister, but is it more sinister than some invisible force (who, how?) deciding how grannie's thoughts shall be controlled into other channels. Take her to Beckett plays? Tristan and Isolde? A course of Shakespeare sonnets?
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
If you think the Pope is too Woke, wait until you meet his boss!
Jesus was certainly Pope Francis's boss - I am not sure who Pope Leo's line manager is.
Best if you try to ignore the Sermon on the Mount.
(Oh... I see you did already.)
I think I'm the least pro-war PBer. I was never a supporter of this one either. I just don't warm to the current tenant of the Vatican.
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.
Is there anything better than eating REALLY GOOD fish and chips (with proper marrow fat peas) while sitting on a bench in the sweet cool evening sun and staring at ferryboats?
Is there anything better than eating REALLY GOOD fish and chips (with proper marrow fat peas) while sitting on a bench in the sweet cool evening sun and staring at ferryboats?
This may be extremely English and parochial of me as a coping mechanism, but sometimes very basic food can be the best.
Is there anything better than eating REALLY GOOD fish and chips (with proper marrow fat peas) while sitting on a bench in the sweet cool evening sun and staring at ferryboats?
This may be extremely English and parochial of me as a coping mechanism, but sometimes very basic food can be the best.
That’s not parochial and English, it’s a profound truth
On my recent trip to Turkey they took me to some posh restaurants to impress me, and they were nice, and clever, but by far the best meal was the most basic and authentic in a shabby taverna in the hills, where I had slow roast goat with peppers and just baked and brilliantly charred flatbread. I could tell my hosts were nervous that I wouldn’t like the downmarket vibe but they said there was nowhere else to go. I tried to explain why I loved it more than all the others without offending them
I do enjoy posh food, sometimes, but in the end the best food is nearly always fresh ingredients cooked as simply as possible
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
I increasingly view this like smoking.
It's just as addictive and just as bad for you.
Good parenting helps (aka blackmail works).
My biggest worry when it comes to social media is the over 60s.
I have so many friends worried their parents/grandparents have become radicalised.
The other day a friend says pretty much every day his grandma sends him bullshit stories.
Her latest fixation is that King Charles is a Muslim convert, last month Sir Keir Starmer passed a law making halal mandatory in the UK, around Christmas she was convinced Rothschilds & Soros are working to deliver the great replacement theory.
She used to be lovely.
But one of the points of a free society is that it is no-one's right to predict or decide what its consequence will be. Without freedom to think false and stupid things, the freedom to think true and great things is also attenuated. Grandparents end up believing nonsense. They are not forced into this, it is the result of a series of choices and options. I accept it is sinister, but is it more sinister than some invisible force (who, how?) deciding how grannie's thoughts shall be controlled into other channels. Take her to Beckett plays? Tristan and Isolde? A course of Shakespeare sonnets?
Don't need to be elderly to believe nonsense. Huge numbers of supposedly bright young things believe nonsense as well. A different nonsense, maybe, but how does that matter?
I can report that Ballycastle is rather charming. And the seafront rooms in the seafront hotel have epic views of the Antrim cliffs. Who knew?!
The glens of Antrim should be more known. Much of the coastal route from Belfast to the Causeway is lovely, and quiet because the cross-country route is faster.
If you've not been, Carrickfergus castle is decent too, though the town itself is a bit knackered.
Could have been worse for Labour though, they remain largest party in Birmingham
Inides on 11% and 1 ward, though? Some polls cross the boundary from "outliers" to "obviously wrong".
Though if those are the final scores, it puts the Conservatives in a bit of a pickle. Leave Failed Labour in place by sitting on their hands? Haul Reform over the line? Form a coalition of losers with the Lib Dems? None of the options is that attractive.
On topic, it would make no sense for Vance to try to invoke the 25th before 20 January 2027. If he were successful and took over before 20 January 2027 he would be ineligible to serve more than one full term. Serve less than two years of this term and he could win two full terms.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
Could have been worse for Labour though, they remain largest party in Birmingham
Inides on 11% and 1 ward, though? Some polls cross the boundary from "outliers" to "obviously wrong".
Though if those are the final scores, it puts the Conservatives in a bit of a pickle. Leave Failed Labour in place by sitting on their hands? Haul Reform over the line? Form a coalition of losers with the Lib Dems? None of the options is that attractive.
I think if those were the figures Ref and Con would be pretty much forced to do a deal as they could no confidence anyone else . A Dudley style one runs the council the other heads up most committees (or whatever system Brum has)?
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
I increasingly view this like smoking.
It's just as addictive and just as bad for you.
Good parenting helps (aka blackmail works).
My biggest worry when it comes to social media is the over 60s.
I have so many friends worried their parents/grandparents have become radicalised.
The other day a friend says pretty much every day his grandma sends him bullshit stories.
Her latest fixation is that King Charles is a Muslim convert, last month Sir Keir Starmer passed a law making halal mandatory in the UK, around Christmas she was convinced Rothschilds & Soros are working to deliver the great replacement theory.
She used to be lovely.
But one of the points of a free society is that it is no-one's right to predict or decide what its consequence will be. Without freedom to think false and stupid things, the freedom to think true and great things is also attenuated. Grandparents end up believing nonsense. They are not forced into this, it is the result of a series of choices and options. I accept it is sinister, but is it more sinister than some invisible force (who, how?) deciding how grannie's thoughts shall be controlled into other channels. Take her to Beckett plays? Tristan and Isolde? A course of Shakespeare sonnets?
Don't need to be elderly to believe nonsense.
That is true, but there is still a widespread - and I believe, false - opinion that wisdom comes with age, which can lead to negative consequences.
It often does, but not always, and there's no reason to assume people cannot get less wise despite more life experience.
Bear in mind I don't trust the wisdom of youth argument either, people do like a child prophet and overpraise articulate and passionate youth, but that's also not a suggestion that the only people who have wisdom are milquetoast fence sitting centrist dads.
It just means that we're all capable of being fools, we need to attempt to get such facts are available and do our best, which will often not be good enough.
I’ve got some upmarket dinners ahead of me, on this assignment. Tasting menus and ‘whisky flights’. But I bet when I look back, that fish and chips eaten on the harbour wall of Ballycastle, in the slant April sun, will be the one I remember, and maybe the best
On topic, it would make no sense for Vance to try to invoke the 25th before 20 January 2027. If he were successful and took over before 20 January 2027 he would be ineligible to serve more than one full term. Serve less than two years of this term and he could win two full terms.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
He might not have much choice if rumours are correct and Trump is in swift cognitive decline. They won’t be able to hide it, Trump’s dementia (if he has it, and I think he does) is not the docile manageable senility of Biden. He tweets out his gibberish on social media
Incidentally, at the Dark Hedges today I heard some American accents (it gets lots of tourists coz of Game of Thrones). For the first time in my life I felt a reflexive animosity, just because America. That has never happened to me before, I am instinctively pro American. Yes they can be irritating but basically I have - or I had - innate goodwill towards our cousins and offspring. It is dwindling and this is sad
They need to stop electing mad ancient presidents and they need to stop exporting horrible insane ideas like Woke
On topic, it would make no sense for Vance to try to invoke the 25th before 20 January 2027. If he were successful and took over before 20 January 2027 he would be ineligible to serve more than one full term. Serve less than two years of this term and he could win two full terms.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
On the other hand, he may decide it's better to try to be a one and a half term President rather than a half term President.
On topic, it would make no sense for Vance to try to invoke the 25th before 20 January 2027. If he were successful and took over before 20 January 2027 he would be ineligible to serve more than one full term. Serve less than two years of this term and he could win two full terms.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
If you think the Pope is too Woke, wait until you meet his boss!
Jesus was certainly Pope Francis's boss - I am not sure who Pope Leo's line manager is.
Best if you try to ignore the Sermon on the Mount.
(Oh... I see you did already.)
I think I'm the least pro-war PBer. I was never a supporter of this one either. I just don't warm to the current tenant of the Vatican.
On topic, it would make no sense for Vance to try to invoke the 25th before 20 January 2027. If he were successful and took over before 20 January 2027 he would be ineligible to serve more than one full term. Serve less than two years of this term and he could win two full terms.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
He might not have much choice if rumours are correct and Trump is in swift cognitive decline. They won’t be able to hide it, Trump’s dementia (if he has it, and I think he does) is not the docile manageable senility of Biden. He tweets out his gibberish on social media
Incidentally, at the Dark Hedges today I heard some American accents (it gets lots of tourists coz of Game of Thrones). For the first time in my life I felt a reflexive animosity, just because America. That has never happened to me before, I am instinctively pro American. Yes they can be irritating but basically I have - or I had - innate goodwill towards our cousins and offspring. It is dwindling and this is sad
They need to stop electing mad presidents and they need to stop exporting insane ideas like Woke
It would help if many of our younger people realised that it's a completely different country. According to the New Statesman discussion I posted earlier many young British women are terrified of Trump. They're scared about the whole trad wife phenomenon. As with BLM after the murder in Minnesota they seem immersed in an English language online culture with little sense of which side of the Atlantic they actually live on.
Could have been worse for Labour though, they remain largest party in Birmingham
Inides on 11% and 1 ward, though? Some polls cross the boundary from "outliers" to "obviously wrong".
Though if those are the final scores, it puts the Conservatives in a bit of a pickle. Leave Failed Labour in place by sitting on their hands? Haul Reform over the line? Form a coalition of losers with the Lib Dems? None of the options is that attractive.
I expect Birmingham Conservatives would abstain and let Labour form a minority administration as largest party still but remain in opposition to it
I’ve got some upmarket dinners ahead of me, on this assignment. Tasting menus and ‘whisky flights’. But I bet when I look back, that fish and chips eaten on the harbour wall of Ballycastle, in the slant April sun, will be the one I remember, and maybe the best
We did the Bushmills tour a while ago. The most interesting part to me was the series of glass ended barrels demonstrating how much the angels share reduces the saleable remainder over time. No wonder 25 year old is so expensive!
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.
Catholic watchers will know that if they had issued a statement NOT defending the pope it would have had a greater significance than the fall of the Berlin wall and would be accompanied by flying pigs.
I really don't appreciate Pope Woke's Justin Welby tribute act.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
He's an American, they're not known for being reticent to speak up.
Yes. Just a superficial participant in the partisan politics of the US. Not Pope material. All very cringey really.
If you think the Pope is too Woke, wait until you meet his boss!
Jesus was certainly Pope Francis's boss - I am not sure who Pope Leo's line manager is.
Best if you try to ignore the Sermon on the Mount.
(Oh... I see you did already.)
I think I'm the least pro-war PBer. I was never a supporter of this one either. I just don't warm to the current tenant of the Vatican.
Which was the last one you warmed to?
John Paul 2 was one of the greatest men in history. The deeper you go into his life story the more impressive he gets
Here’s one paragraph from his wiki entry
In mid-1938, Wojtyła and his father left Wadowice and moved to Kraków, where he enrolled at the Jagiellonian University. While studying such topics as philology and various languages, he worked as a volunteer librarian and though required to participate in compulsory military training in the Academic Legion, he refused to fire a weapon. He performed with various theatrical groups and worked as a playwright.[29] During this time, his talent for language blossomed, and he learned as many as 15 languages – Polish, Latin, Italian, English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Luxembourgish, Dutch, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, Slovak, and Esperanto,[30] nine of which he used extensively as pope.
On topic, it would make no sense for Vance to try to invoke the 25th before 20 January 2027. If he were successful and took over before 20 January 2027 he would be ineligible to serve more than one full term. Serve less than two years of this term and he could win two full terms.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
He might not have much choice if rumours are correct and Trump is in swift cognitive decline. They won’t be able to hide it, Trump’s dementia (if he has it, and I think he does) is not the docile manageable senility of Biden. He tweets out his gibberish on social media
Incidentally, at the Dark Hedges today I heard some American accents (it gets lots of tourists coz of Game of Thrones). For the first time in my life I felt a reflexive animosity, just because America. That has never happened to me before, I am instinctively pro American. Yes they can be irritating but basically I have - or I had - innate goodwill towards our cousins and offspring. It is dwindling and this is sad
They need to stop electing mad presidents and they need to stop exporting insane ideas like Woke
It would help if many of our younger people realised that it's a completely different country. According to the New Statesman discussion I posted earlier many young British women are terrified of Trump. They're scared about the whole trad wife phenomenon. As with BLM after the murder in Minnesota they seem immersed in an English language online culture with little sense of which side of the Atlantic they actually live on.
Exactly right. And it weirdly seems to go both ways, with online Americans obsessing about British current affairs.
Perhaps now we have auto translation of foreign language social posts this Anglosphere phenomenon will fade a little.
On topic, it would make no sense for Vance to try to invoke the 25th before 20 January 2027. If he were successful and took over before 20 January 2027 he would be ineligible to serve more than one full term. Serve less than two years of this term and he could win two full terms.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
He might not have much choice if rumours are correct and Trump is in swift cognitive decline. They won’t be able to hide it, Trump’s dementia (if he has it, and I think he does) is not the docile manageable senility of Biden. He tweets out his gibberish on social media
Incidentally, at the Dark Hedges today I heard some American accents (it gets lots of tourists coz of Game of Thrones). For the first time in my life I felt a reflexive animosity, just because America. That has never happened to me before, I am instinctively pro American. Yes they can be irritating but basically I have - or I had - innate goodwill towards our cousins and offspring. It is dwindling and this is sad
They need to stop electing mad ancient presidents and they need to stop exporting horrible insane ideas like Woke
I suspect the Americans that support Trump don’t leave America.
Comments
I’m here. Outside the Eurospar. If there’s anyone else here
Worth noting the More In Common poll for Birmingham has simply applied UNS to come up with the seat predictions which is basically useless.
Another for the "rubbish" polls is the J L Partners predictions which are also palpable nonsense.
Why normally sensible pollsters do such silly things as seat predictions or MRPs for local contests without the detailed local knowledge is beyond me. I've yet to see anyone do a proper prediction for Newham - I imagine I'll have to do it and I'm much cheaper than YouGov. Some will scoff I'm not a member of the BPC but having seen some of the offerings from those who are, I'm not sure it's valuable.
Frankly, he is probably correct in everything he's saying, but I have a profound suspicion it's all so he can be congratulated by George and Amal Clooney.
Pope Francis was a genuinely holy man who sometimes said hard and unfashionable things to hear and didn't jump on every hobby horse. This is a significant downgrade.
The reason Chris Evans is paid a fortune by Virgin is that everyone saw he drew a bigger audience even than Terry Wogan when he took over from him, and that listenership dropped again once he left.
You might not like Chris Evans but that's besides the point. And it is the same for every other radio presenter.
Theres a grand unifying polling conspiracy theory in there somewhere.
JLP lost me with Tories on better than 2022 in Norwich yet a third of 2021 % in Norfolk. Wipeout in Suffolk but winning Ipswich.
MRP and locals..... not sure they mix well
I'm sticking for now with my initial thought of 1000 Labour losses and 500 Conservative losses.
In Newham, where I'm not currently, the Greens have tried to discredit the Labour Mayoral candidate with some ancient and completely unfounded claims and that could well backfire.
If you are a good presenter who is upcoming then you would take a BBC job on less as it gives you higher profile and then a commercial station can come in for you.
Military planning for a possible Pentagon-led operation in Cuba is quietly ramping up, in case President Donald Trump gives an order to intervene there, USA TODAY has learned.
There are options to choose, and competent leaders make a difference, but there isn't a uniquely LD or Reform or Indy approach to potholes and adult social care, they will pick differently on different areas.
No-one at the BBC should be giving a sh!t about whether their breakfast show gets more listeners that Virgin or Capital or Talk. They should be doing something different.
Support development in the right place/oppose inappropriate development
Keep council tax low/ensure good value for money/ cut waste
Fix potholes
Listen to people.
That's usually about it. Sometimes you are lucky and there are some specific things.
I've never seen social care mentioned.
The price is absurd
It’s a 29 mile journey, and a single costs FORTY FIVE POUNDS
That’s more than half what my single from London to Paris cost me; it’s fucking insane..
Luckily Bedwyn is just as easy for me to get to; the single from there, which only takes four minutes longer, is just £17.80
Across Britain a radical new feminism is rising
By Emily Lawford"
https://www.newstatesman.com/cover-story/2026/04/meet-the-angry-young-women-why-young-women-dont-want-to-date-me
Certainly in my part of the world, both the Greens and the Newham Independents are talking about local issues and it's interesting to see a convergence between them on some local ideas and policies.
When I spoke to the NIP Mayoral Candidate, Mehmood Mirza, and pointed out his ideas on freezing the council tax for example were fiscally incoherent, he didn't disagree. His response was he would lobby the Government for more money - I can't see the Government ponying up the money to please him and he will of course blame them when they don't.
As for social care for both adults and vulnerable children, until central Government acknowledges it's a national problem requiring a national solution it will continue to erode local finances. As is often the case, Labour seems set to continue the Conservative policy of inaction.
Unfortunately, the costs of social care have risen as to undermine the fiscal management of even well-run councils. It's one of the many consequences of an ageing population for even if the proportion of those requiring specialist care (especially dementia care) isn't rising, the actual numbers are going up.
All the candidates will lobby the government for more cash, it's about the only thing that unites many councils.
Not native to Ireland. Where's my chainsaw?
It’s Spotify or Audible for me all the way,
It really does need heavily reining in, or it'll be our downfall.
Social media ban for under-16s rejected by MPs for second time
LIV Golf: Doubts over the future of Saudi-backed tour
Growing speculation suggests the breakaway venture could soon be shut down, with executives reportedly called to an emergency meeting in New York
Golfers on the LIV tour are bracing themselves for bombshell news amid rumours that the controversial Saudi-backed league could soon be shut down.
Players and agents remained in the dark about any impending big news when contacted by The Times, while LIV officials have so far not responded to requests for comment. Last week, the LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil was at Augusta for the Masters and gave no indication that the Saudi Public Investment Fund was about to pull the plug.
The LIV breakaway sent shockwaves through golf before its first event four years ago, with some of the game’s biggest names including Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Sergio García and Bryson DeChambeau leaving the established DP World and PGA tours to sign big-money deals. Jon Rahm, the two-times major winner and European Ryder Cup stalwart, joined them in 2024.
https://www.thetimes.com/sport/golf/article/liv-golf-rumours-doubts-future-saudi-tour-hs8z2t3zv
My youngest isn't interested but the worsening revelations about Meta enabling exploitation of children with no consideration for anything other than profit, don't give me good feelings about children using social media.
Seem to be a fair number of older people who go off the rails.
https://x.com/Wahlrecht_de/status/2044296009929375833
AfD 27 %
CDU/CSU 23 %
GRÜNE 14 %
SPD 13 %
DIE LINKE 10 %
BSW 4 %
FDP 4 %
It's just as addictive and just as bad for you.
https://x.com/i/status/2044463904676360404
My biggest worry when it comes to social media is the over 60s.
I have so many friends worried their parents/grandparents have become radicalised.
The other day a friend says pretty much every day his grandma sends him bullshit stories.
Her latest fixation is that King Charles is a Muslim convert, last month Sir Keir Starmer passed a law making halal mandatory in the UK, around Christmas she was convinced Rothschilds & Soros are working to deliver the great replacement theory.
She used to be lovely.
Imagine having to profess loyalty to that..
I’m now waiting for fish and chips with marrow fat peas in he harbour front. From Morton’s. Apparently they are epic
The views to Rathlin Island are great and I wonder if I can see Islay just beyond
For those over about 15 (and perhaps those under) social media is will not and cannot be reined in by authority. It is here to stay and the basics of free speech does the rest.
A different shift in viewpoint is required: Young men and young women, like everyone else, are responsible for their thoughts, words and deeds and are free to be as radical or unradical as they like within the rule of law and have to take the consequences of their choices. Without such a frame learning and development cannot take place in order to grow wisdom. They cannot be protected from themselves or the wicked world. The world of bans and trigger warnings (university courses!!) is a frightening warning.
There’s going to be a lot of Gulf retrenching going on the longer Hormuz is shut.
(FWIW, a ban on under-16s is probably either too much or not enough. But if there's a consultation, it's absurd to do anything without seeing what that throws up.)
(Oh... I see you did already.)
Eluned Morgen being hammered by questioners and the reporter in charge of the Senedd debate on BBC Wales.
It doesn't look good for Labour in Wales.
On my recent trip to Turkey they took me to some posh restaurants to impress me, and they were nice, and clever, but by far the best meal was the most basic and authentic in a shabby taverna in the hills, where I had slow roast goat with peppers and just baked and brilliantly charred flatbread. I could tell my hosts were nervous that I wouldn’t like the downmarket vibe but they said there was nowhere else to go. I tried to explain why I loved it more than all the others without offending them
I do enjoy posh food, sometimes, but in the end the best food is nearly always fresh ingredients cooked as simply as possible
If you've not been, Carrickfergus castle is decent too, though the town itself is a bit knackered.
Though if those are the final scores, it puts the Conservatives in a bit of a pickle. Leave Failed Labour in place by sitting on their hands? Haul Reform over the line? Form a coalition of losers with the Lib Dems? None of the options is that attractive.
Now, all of that may well be moot of course if GOP numbers continue to tank but I suspect in Vance's mind he would be expect to be popular and able to win future POTUS elections.
A Dudley style one runs the council the other heads up most committees (or whatever system Brum has)?
It often does, but not always, and there's no reason to assume people cannot get less wise despite more life experience.
Bear in mind I don't trust the wisdom of youth argument either, people do like a child prophet and overpraise articulate and passionate youth, but that's also not a suggestion that the only people who have wisdom are milquetoast fence sitting centrist dads.
It just means that we're all capable of being fools, we need to attempt to get such facts are available and do our best, which will often not be good enough.
Incidentally, at the Dark Hedges today I heard some American accents (it gets lots of tourists coz of Game of Thrones). For the first time in my life I felt a reflexive animosity, just because America. That has never happened to me before, I am instinctively pro American. Yes they can be irritating but basically I have - or I had - innate goodwill towards our cousins and offspring. It is dwindling and this is sad
They need to stop electing mad ancient presidents and they need to stop exporting horrible insane ideas like Woke
I think sense left the room some time ago.
Here’s one paragraph from his wiki entry
In mid-1938, Wojtyła and his father left Wadowice and moved to Kraków, where he enrolled at the Jagiellonian University. While studying such topics as philology and various languages, he worked as a volunteer librarian and though required to participate in compulsory military training in the Academic Legion, he refused to fire a weapon. He performed with various theatrical groups and worked as a playwright.[29] During this time, his talent for language blossomed, and he learned as many as 15 languages – Polish, Latin, Italian, English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Luxembourgish, Dutch, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, Slovak, and Esperanto,[30] nine of which he used extensively as pope.
Perhaps now we have auto translation of foreign language social posts this Anglosphere phenomenon will fade a little.