politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gains from both CON and LAB plus other good local results o

"Lib Dems elect reasonable sounding centrist bloke"

Well that's one way of describing Tim Farron I guess!

I don't think Tim Farron will be telling Lib Dems to go home and prepare for government though. He doesn't really approve of that sort of thing.

Is Nick Clegg really going to hang around for 5 years now that a new leader is in place? Or will his old mucker Cameron find him a decent international job to do? It seems to me that a bye election in Sheffield Hallam is at least as likely as anywhere else and that the Lib Dems would have a real job holding on to it.

Their best bet, like Eastbourne, is that the opposition is fairly evenly split, this time between Labour and the Conservatives and they just might slip through the middle, especially if Nick hangs on until mid term blues hit the Conservatives. But it won't be fun for the Lib Dems.

antifrank said:

Tim Farron has insisted that he is not a centrist:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/16/tim-farron-named-liberal-democrat-party-leader

He got to power by convincing a lot of Tories in W&L that he shared their thinking. His subsequent transition to a Lefty surprised many people

Ha ha, looks like the Guardian fell hook, line and sinker for the Telegraph's tongue-in-cheek 'Vote Corbyn' article. They do need to get themselves a sense of humour and proportion sometimes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11744789/My-failed-attempt-to-destroy-Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-and-British-democracy.html

Off-topic:

We haven't heard much about the squirrel recently. It appears he's taken the election result rather hard:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

We haven't heard much about the squirrel recently. It appears he's taken the election result rather hard:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502

There's another good squirrel story here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYdy1r_YmxU

Casino_Royale said:

"Speaking to an audience of around 500 party members after his victory, Farron described the Lib Dem defeat at the general election as “overwhelming, desperate, heartbreaking.” He said the party’s election campaign had focused too much on what the party wasn’t instead of what it was.

“So let me be crystal clear what the Liberal Democrats are for: we are the party that sees the best in people not the worst,” said Farron to deafening applause."

What mainstream UK party is for seeing the worst in people, not the best?

Tories, obviously. Silly question.

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

Best of luck to them.

The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

PClipp said:

Casino_Royale said:

"Speaking to an audience of around 500 party members after his victory, Farron described the Lib Dem defeat at the general election as “overwhelming, desperate, heartbreaking.” He said the party’s election campaign had focused too much on what the party wasn’t instead of what it was.

“So let me be crystal clear what the Liberal Democrats are for: we are the party that sees the best in people not the worst,” said Farron to deafening applause."

What mainstream UK party is for seeing the worst in people, not the best?

Tories, obviously. Silly question.

Conservatives would strongly disagree - they are about trusting people.

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

We haven't heard much about the squirrel recently. It appears he's taken the election result rather hard:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33541502

Is that 'posed by a model' squirrel one with a thriving modelling career?

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

Best of luck to them.

The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

Let's see what Farron adds to that.

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

Best of luck to them.

The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

Let's see what Farron adds to that.

Let's see how electorally popular it is when millions of families find they have less coming in than they did previously. At that stage we may discover that IHT cuts and ring-fencing all spending on the Tory client state are not as joyously received.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Moses, must agree. I doubt the money will ever return. And we should never have been on the hook for any in the first place.

Mr. Royale, quite. Farron's not alone, but the horrifyingly bland, tedious nature of many political statements make them worthless.

Good luck to the LDs. Farron gives them a chance to move on from the coalition disaster.

Harman we will support the Tories welfare chanes

The acrid smell of burning rubber in combination with the scream of tortured wheels as after completing a number of political doughnuts the labour party for the grand finale complete a humongous U turn

Daily Telegraph

Labour will no longer support George Osborne’s cuts to benefits, Harriet Harman has said, after a rebellion from scores of MPs and some of the candidates for the Labour leadership.

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

Best of luck to them.

The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

Let's see what Farron adds to that.

I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy

My 20-year d nephew is the same. He works at Bentley. I'm v.proud of him.

Jonathan said:

Good luck to the LDs. Farron gives them a chance to move on from the coalition disaster.

You are making a habit of seeing things incorrectly. The Coalition did a brilliant job in very difficult circumstances, you would rather airbrush away the mess Brown made of the UK.

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Is Nick Clegg really going to hang around for 5 years now that a new leader is in place? Or will his old mucker Cameron find him a decent international job to do? It seems to me that a bye election in Sheffield Hallam is at least as likely as anywhere else and that the Lib Dems would have a real job holding on to it.

Their best bet, like Eastbourne, is that the opposition is fairly evenly split, this time between Labour and the Conservatives and they just might slip through the middle, especially if Nick hangs on until mid term blues hit the Conservatives. But it won't be fun for the Lib Dems.

Morning. Does Clegg have much of a choice? He knows that if he resigns he leaves a very tight by-election and could lose his party another seat for no reason. The best thing he could do for his party is to stay behind the scenes and find the successor for his seat in 2020 if he wants to leave at that point.

Indeed. Similar reason, or an additional reason, to why Carmichael will stick around. Could be risks for both places in five years if they stick around, but going now would risk giving those seats away for sure.

notme said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

Best of luck to them.

The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

Let's see what Farron adds to that.

Let's see how electorally popular it is when millions of families find they have less coming in than they did previously. At that stage we may discover that IHT cuts and ring-fencing all spending on the Tory client state are not as joyously received.

Wasnt this the entire 2010-2015 labour election strategy? Wait until the tory cuts begin to bite and we will be back in on a wave of popular will. For some the whole scale of child tax credits was wrong and unsustainable, and they knew it. But would you knock back £6k of cash for popping out two kids?

I am not particularly interested in Labour right now. My argument is with the contention that tax cuts and protected welfare payments for the Tory client state are going to be as popular when the other side of the bargain becomes apparent.

Moses_ said:

Financier said:

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

Only saying...

Quite agree with you, but the interview, also on Newsnight, with the man from the BBC - he gave the impression that the BBC should not be questioned in any way and totally ignored currents stats on the BBC.

The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries, benefits and manning (and womaning). To me the more sports they lose the less value they are giving and I will not pay for them on SKY. Perhaps he needs to lobby more the DCMS and cut the numbers of staff that attend prestigious events.

Casino_Royale said:

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.

Best of luck to them.

The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.

I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.

However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.

Let's see what Farron adds to that.

I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy

My 20-year d nephew is the same. He works at Bentley. I'm v.proud of him.

40% of 18-34 year olds voted either Conservative or UKIP, which is an encouraging number.

Jonathan said:

Financier said:

Moses_ said:

Financier said:

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

Only saying...

The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries..

Would be nice if the BBC started paying market rates.

Problem is the BBC 'is' the market. It effects everything around it, like the Sun with it's gravitational pull.

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

Financier said:

Moses_ said:

Financier said:

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

Only saying...

The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries..

Would be nice if the BBC started paying market rates.

Problem is the BBC 'is' the market. It effects everything around it, like the Sun with it's gravitational pull.

That's a naive view. Many, if not most, BBC employees work in fields where the BBC certainly does not dominate the market. For example the BBC does not set the market rate for Ruby developers.

The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.

Says one man talking to another man on the internet.

Financier said:

Moses_ said:

Financier said:

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

Only saying...

Quite agree with you, but the interview, also on Newsnight, with the man from the BBC - he gave the impression that the BBC should not be questioned in any way and totally ignored currents stats on the BBC.

The BBC even if it maintained its current programme profile, needs to get realistic on salaries, benefits and manning (and womaning). To me the more sports they lose the less value they are giving and I will not pay for them on SKY. Perhaps he needs to lobby more the DCMS and cut the numbers of staff that attend prestigious events.

I believe the man from the BBC was the very same James Purnell.

Moses_ said:

Financier said:

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

Only saying...

All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Moses_ said:

Financier said:

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

Only saying...

All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.

If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.

If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Plato said:

Mr Norton who's paid many millions by the BBC. I'm shocked.

Sandpit said:

BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

Careful -- I was reprimanded yesterday for pointing out that most of the BBC's critics had a vested interest as well -- owning or working for rival broadcasters.

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Moses_ said:

Financier said:

The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.

Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.

I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)

That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax

Only saying...

All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.

If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.

If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Does anyone at the BBC earn as much as the Governor of the Bank of England?

BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Plato said:

Mr Norton who's paid many millions by the BBC. I'm shocked.

Sandpit said:

BBC Luvvies are still going on about the BBC to anyone who will listen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11743814/Graham-Norton-The-BBC-should-stop-for-two-months-wed-stop-moaning-about-it-then.html
Does anyone still think this isn't being co-ordinated by the bigwigs?

Careful -- I was reprimanded yesterday for pointing out that most of the BBC's critics had a vested interest as well -- owning or working for rival broadcasters.

What BBC haters really struggle with is that Norton is probably more representative of the general view than they are.

Mr. Observer, it's the BBC that wants to increase the mandatory licence fee.

Mr. Royale, Canadian case, but a man's on trial for disagreeing with a feminist on Twitter. She claims he made her feel endangered. Under Canadian law, it seems, the charge will be judged by his actions (deemed not to be threatening) but also her subjective feelings.

It's a horrendous law. I just hope we don't get that level of bullshit over here.

Still, it's not like a woman can tweet about killing all white men and keep her job as a diversity officer whilst a respected scientist can have comments taken out of context and his resignation forced upon him, right?

I am heartened that your son's generation seems to be shifting away from the 'gosh, don't be offensive' limpwristedness of older generations.

SouthamObserver said:

BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

Payback time.

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.

Says one man talking to another man on the internet.

We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.

It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.

antifrank said:

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.

Says one man talking to another man on the internet.

We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.

It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.

Being a publisher is irrelevant. You are shouting in an empty room.

The scarce resource is attention. To influence that you need serious resources. And again that is controlled by very few.

antifrank said:

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.

Says one man talking to another man on the internet.

We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.

It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.

TV is a great example of diversification. We've gone from 4 channels when I was a kid (3 for many others here I suspect) to hundreds of channels that are frequently ignored in favour of downloading shows off the internet.

I'd estimate 95% of shows I watch now from broadcast media are broadcast on non-BBC channels - but more often shows watched are not even being broadcast but downloaded.

SouthamObserver said:

BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

Yes, but are they full of stuff that people really want to watch? Surely the BBC should focus on making very good programmes that also can be sold/licensed overseas to recoup some of the cost (e.g Top Gear). This should be in parallel with its public interest - information programmes and globally-received news and information programmes.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SouthamObserver said:

BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.

Your concern at the plight of the 30 or more families a year in the UK blighted by the consequences of refusing to pay the TV licence does you great credit. I wonder what your views are on the plight of the thousands of families each year whose lives are blighted by government decisions you support.

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

Jonathan said:

antifrank said:

The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.

Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?

If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.

Says one man talking to another man on the internet.

We do not matter one jot. Arguably less influence than two tramps arguing on a park bench.

It was the medium rather than the interlocutors I was drawing attention to.

Anyone can be a publisher nowadays. Hell, I am. There are people on YouTube making good money out of interests that I find incomprehensible (opening boxes? playing video games and commenting on them?). The scarcity of resource that was control of media has gone.

Being a publisher is irrelevant. You are shouting in an empty room.

The scarce resource is attention. To influence that you need serious resources. And again that is controlled by very few.

Nonsense. They say that the weight of all the ants in the world far outweighs the weight of all the humans. Just so with micro-publishing.

And there are new more mainstream publishers coming through all the time from all directions. The internet was convulsed this month by a crisis at Reddit. Reddit was founded in 2005 by two graduates. VICE News was created in 2013. I'm not particularly au courant so no doubt I'm not up to speed with the latest coming things. And I haven't mentioned Facebook or Twitter or Pinterest or Instagram.

This is the world in which the BBC now exists, and it's only heading in one direction.

The BBC needs protecting from itself. It shoots itself in the foot with monotonous regularity.

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

Payback time.

And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.

But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.

When in the non News programmes there are more attacks and smears etc against the Conservatives, then the BBC is not impartial. But, this "assault" as you describe it against the BBC is probably doomed before it starts by the failure to decriminalise the licence fee.

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.

The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.

Payback time.

And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.

But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.

Privatise it, let them implement advertising. Less cost. As for choice, the BBC are just a few out of hundreds of channels not the be all and end all. I'm sure a Bargain Hunt equivalent can be funded without sending people to prison for a poll tax.

Big ticket advertising is a finite resource. With its brand and audience figures the BBC would take a great chunk of it. Thus, there would less for everyone else. I'd go for a subscription model. At, say, £200 a year it would be significantly cheaper than most Sky packages and my guess is that while some would drop out most would stay in, meaning more income. That would also enable the BBC to go out into the markets and raise capital - something that it would do with ease. Again, though, it may not work entirely in the favour of the BBC's competitors.

Careful with the spelling...

@mattholehouse: Hermany Van Rompuy is to enter the ranks of aristocracy and be made a Count by King Filip, Belgian media reports