Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next LAB leader betting price on Yvette Cooper starts to ea

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited November 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next LAB leader betting price on Yvette Cooper starts to ease as the focus moves to Umunna and Hunt:

There’s a great piece in the Sunday Telegraph today by Matthew d’Ancona in which he identifies rising LAB stars Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt as the Blair and Brown next generation Labour.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First!!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited November 2013
    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
  • Excellent article -and a key point:

    " But, whatever happens on the great board, these two politicians already represent something significant: a cohort of senior Labour politicians not defined by the Blair-Brown rivalry or the political contours of that era.....

    ........When the two Eds shuffle off the stage – in 2015 if Labour loses, or much later if it prevails – it will be their generation’s turn. Once again, as if cyclically, the party has “two bright boys” close to the helm. They personify the end of New Labour. The question is whether they have truly learnt its lessons."

    Given the hangover from the last government, and the dysfunctional relationship between the two Eds over what, if anything, to concede over it - a fresh break may be what Lavour needs. "It was that lot that wrecked it" has far less potency against the new boys.
  • Both Umunna and Hunt are possibly great bets for those wishing to give the bookies an interest free loan for the next 5-10 years. Personally I can make better use of my money.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

  • JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

    Jack - if you're right and Miliband is forced out after a GE defeat 18 months hence, then Hunt appears particularly good value as the party is forced into yet another volte-face.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited November 2013
    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

    Summer 2015 is clearly a key date. If Ed goes there could indeed be real/broad contest/fight, as it really should clearly be the last hurrah for the generation that saw service in the Brown cabinet.

    (Unless of course like the Tories, they were to pick a spectacular dud who needs to be replaced asap)
  • Good YouGov top line for Labour 41, +9 vs Con on 32, LD 8, UKIP 12, but also encouraging internals for the govt:

    Net well:
    Cameron: -18 (+4)
    Miliband: -28 (+3)

    Coalition managing economy: -12 (+8)

    Unite Falkirk fix?
    Prob did : 41
    Prob not: 11
    Don't know: 48

    Labour reopen Falkirk enquiry?
    Yes: 43
    No: 18
    DK: 39

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cdntzyn7rn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-011113.pdf
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

    Jack - if you're right and Miliband is forced out after a GE defeat 18 months hence, then Hunt appears particularly good value as the party is forced into yet another volte-face.
    Hunt may have been value as a trading bet a few weeks back but the value has gone.

    I wouldn't want to place too much emphasis on a single event but his Emergency Question was very poorly attended by Labour MPs, he was duffed over by Gove and Labour members seem to enjoy the ribbing Hunt received a little too well.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited November 2013
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

    Summer 2015 is clearly a key date. If Ed goes there could indeed be real/broad contest/fight, as it really should clearly be the last hurrah for the generation that saw service in the Brown cabinet.

    (Unless of course like the Tories, they were to pick a spectacular dud who needs to be replaced asap)
    It's possible Labour might pick their own version of IDS .... again, but after Ed they might choose wisely.

    One other thoughtlet. Labour are not good regicides. If Ed got pretty close but no cigar he might be given another run as was Kinnock in 1987 and then the field widens even further !!

  • JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

    Jack - if you're right and Miliband is forced out after a GE defeat 18 months hence, then Hunt appears particularly good value as the party is forced into yet another volte-face.
    Hunt may have been value as a trading bet a few weeks back but the value has gone.

    I wouldn't want to place too much emphasis on a single event but his Emergency Question was very poorly attended by Labour MPs, he was duffed over by Gove and Labour members seem to enjoy the ribbing Hunt received a little too well.

    So Jack - who would your money be on, assuming you're right and there were to be a Labour leadership election in Summer 2015?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited November 2013
    JackW said:

    One other thoughtlet. Labour are not good regicides. If Ed got pretty close but no cigar he might be given another run as was Kinnock in 1987 and then the field widens even further !!

    I doubt it. Unless something unexpected happens with FPTP a "close but no cigar" result means that Labour will have lost the popular vote quite badly. I don't think there's any particular constituency in the Labour Party that's massively attached to Ed Miliband, and if he loses it's going to look like the problem is charisma, which is hard to fix. I think it's PM or bust.

    Cameron is probably in a similar position, so in the event that the LibDems manage to end up with kingmaker power in 2015 they'll have some serious leverage.
  • "How sickening has it been to watch Labour MPs trying to defend Unite’s totally indefensible “leverage” tactics at Grangemouth?

    Tactics which involved baying mobs of protesters descending on the homes of oil refinery executives with the effect of intimidating their wives and children.

    Wives and children who live in constant fear of it happening again.

    But the mob didn’t stop at just intimidating them. It went to surrounding houses telling neighbours how evil they were.

    No, what’s evil is a union boss who sanctions this kind of bullying.

    So why hasn’t Miliband properly condemned these bully-boy squads?

    Ah yes – he needs their money."

    Mail on Sunday
    Sunday Times
    Sun on Sunday
    Sunday Express
    Sunday Telegraph


    Sunday Mirror:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/carole-malone-column-union-tactics-2669432#ixzz2jZ7UgNYq
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    edited November 2013
    Chukka is overrated.Tristam holds promise.But as Mike rightly points out,Miliband will probably be in Downing street in 2015 and then anything can happen.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

    Jack - if you're right and Miliband is forced out after a GE defeat 18 months hence, then Hunt appears particularly good value as the party is forced into yet another volte-face.
    Hunt may have been value as a trading bet a few weeks back but the value has gone.

    I wouldn't want to place too much emphasis on a single event but his Emergency Question was very poorly attended by Labour MPs, he was duffed over by Gove and Labour members seem to enjoy the ribbing Hunt received a little too well.

    So Jack - who would your money be on, assuming you're right and there were to be a Labour leadership election in Summer 2015?
    Frankly there are times to sit out some contests.

    Fine to spot value in the market and trade accordingly but in terms of picking a winner I'm not sure there's a surer way presently than borrowing Peter the Punter's horse racing predictive pin and sticking it in one of the candidates.

    Unusually for me put me down as a "Don't Know".

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I see Labour are now planning to spend more money by scrapping the wedding licence fee. Do they have any policies that don't involve spending money or bankers bonus taxes?
  • Both Umunna and Hunt are possibly great bets for those wishing to give the bookies an interest free loan for the next 5-10 years. Personally I can make better use of my money.

    Well, quite. I think that I'd prefer to bolster my own pension fund rather than Shadsy's.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    Has very atypical VI for Rest of South:
    Con: 37; LAB:38; LD: 9 UKIP:14

    Do you think the coalition government is
    managing the economy well or badly? -12(-20)

    In your opinion how good or bad is the state of
    Britain's economy at the moment? -29(-33)

    How do you think the financial situation of your
    household will change over the next 12months?
    Better: 13 (15)
    Worse: 41(47)

    Would you personally prefer working for a male
    or female boss?

    Male: 30
    Female: 14
    Dont mind: 56

    Women reply : 36/14/50
  • SMukesh said:

    Chukka is overrated.Tristam holds promise.But as Mike rightly points out,Miliband will probably be in Downing street in 2015 and then anything can happen.

    Mike says no such thing! Had he done so, he would readily have concluded that there was no point in highlighting the odds available on the two individuals concerned.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    One other thoughtlet. Labour are not good regicides. If Ed got pretty close but no cigar he might be given another run as was Kinnock in 1987 and then the field widens even further !!

    I doubt it. Unless something unexpected happens with FPTP a "close but no cigar" result means that Labour will have lost the popular vote quite badly. I don't think there's any particular constituency in the Labour Party that's massively attached to Ed Miliband, and if he loses it's going to look like the problem is charisma, which is hard to fix. I think it's PM or bust.

    Cameron is probably in a similar position, so in the event that the LibDems manage to end up with kingmaker power in 2015 they'll have some serious leverage.
    I broadly agree but a tight result in the order of :

    Con 290 .. Labour 280 .. LibDem 40

    might see Miliband remain as LotO to harry a Coalition with a tiny majority.

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    Chukka is overrated.Tristam holds promise.But as Mike rightly points out,Miliband will probably be in Downing street in 2015 and then anything can happen.

    Mike says no such thing! Had he done so, he would readily have concluded that there was no point in highlighting the odds available on the two individuals concerned.</blockq

    Fair enough!

    The fact that Yvette Cooper`s odds are easing is a sign that the markets think Ed is at much less danger than he was in August.
  • Betfair - Leader Exit Dates - Ed Miliband

    July 2015 or later 1.56

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    If Labour lose decisively in summer 2015 (to me an extremely unlikely scenario) there would be a contest quickly. The sensible thing would be a swing back to the centre ground with Hunt or Ummuna being in the running; with both representing the champagne socialist tendency. There would be an open contest and a real chance of Labour rejecting the metropolitan elite and wanting someone with a more ordinary background. I think Andy Burnham a good bet (and have a sum on him) but as a longer shot there are others. Liz Kendall has impressed me a bit, and now is part of the front bench team, one to watch: http://www.lizkendall.org

    If Milliband wins a working majority, then he is safe. An indecisive result (as seems possible) and we enter uncharted waters.

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    I'm of the view that Chukka is over rated as leader material - solid enough politically for the shadow cabinet but below the level required as a PM in waiting .... but there again this is Labour and they've given us Foot, Kinnock and Ed.

    Hunt has made an indifferent impression as Shadow Education Secretary and does he have the hinterland and depth of support for a run as leader ?

    Another factor to be mulled over is timing. If you consider as I do that :

    Ed Milband will never be Prime Minister

    then Ed will be gone by the summer of 2015 and therefore the viable candidates are already amongst the usual suspects - Not an overly thrilling prospect !!

    These conversations have all the predictive power of a dead octopus. Imagine picking the next Tory leader 1978-88, the next Labour leader in 1984 or 1993, the next Tory leader in 2003.

    The best rule of thumb is that anyone in the running now, almost certainly won't get it.
    IMO the predictive power here is somewhat easier that the dates you indicate as I see Summer 2015 as the trigger point. The problem with the Labour contest is the openness of the field.

    Jack - if you're right and Miliband is forced out after a GE defeat 18 months hence, then Hunt appears particularly good value as the party is forced into yet another volte-face.
  • SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Chukka is overrated.Tristam holds promise.But as Mike rightly points out,Miliband will probably be in Downing street in 2015 and then anything can happen.

    Mike says no such thing! Had he done so, he would readily have concluded that there was no point in highlighting the odds available on the two individuals concerned.
    Fair enough!

    The fact that Yvette Cooper`s odds are easing is a sign that the markets think Ed is at much less danger than he was in August.
    No it doesn't!

    It just says Yvette (who she?) Cooper has been invisible and is less likely to replace Ed when he goes....
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Chukka is overrated.Tristam holds promise.But as Mike rightly points out,Miliband will probably be in Downing street in 2015 and then anything can happen.

    Mike says no such thing! Had he done so, he would readily have concluded that there was no point in highlighting the odds available on the two individuals concerned.
    Fair enough!

    The fact that Yvette Cooper`s odds are easing is a sign that the markets think Ed is at much less danger than he was in August.
    No it doesn't!

    It just says Yvette (who she?) Cooper has been invisible and is less likely to replace Ed when he goes....
    So you are saying that Labour will project a first-time MP over experience for PM in 2015.I think that`s very unlikely.

    The fact that the two young pretenders are tightening in the race indicates that the markets don`t think there`ll be a leadership contest till the next election.
  • The "Next Labour Leader" market is a lot cooler than the Next Con and Next LD leader markets. For obvious reasons.

    Betfair - UK politics - Matched bet sums - Leaderboard

    Next UK General Election - Most Seats GBP 155,720
    Next UK General Election - Overall Majority GBP 101,916
    Scotland Independence Referendum 2014 - Winner GBP 35,801
    Next Conservative Leader GBP 15,410
    Next Prime Minister GBP 9,809
    Next Liberal Democrat Leader GBP 6,611
    Next UK General Election - Party Leaders GBP 5,061
    Next Labour Leader GBP 3,497
    Leader Exit Dates - Ed Miliband GBP 718
    London Mayoral Election 2016 - Winner GBP 412
  • JackW said:

    JackW said:

    One other thoughtlet. Labour are not good regicides. If Ed got pretty close but no cigar he might be given another run as was Kinnock in 1987 and then the field widens even further !!

    I doubt it. Unless something unexpected happens with FPTP a "close but no cigar" result means that Labour will have lost the popular vote quite badly. I don't think there's any particular constituency in the Labour Party that's massively attached to Ed Miliband, and if he loses it's going to look like the problem is charisma, which is hard to fix. I think it's PM or bust.

    Cameron is probably in a similar position, so in the event that the LibDems manage to end up with kingmaker power in 2015 they'll have some serious leverage.
    I broadly agree but a tight result in the order of :

    Con 290 .. Labour 280 .. LibDem 40

    might see Miliband remain as LotO to harry a Coalition with a tiny majority.

    Maybe short-term, I suppose, at least for as long as it took to work out whether there was going to be a fresh election. But reverse-Baxtering those numbers you've got Lab losing to Con by something like 4.5%. In that situation I'm sure somebody would make a move, and procedurally it's a lot easier in opposition than it is in government.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    If Labour lose decisively in summer 2015 (to me an extremely unlikely scenario) there would be a contest quickly. The sensible thing would be a swing back to the centre ground with Hunt or Ummuna being in the running; with both representing the champagne socialist tendency. There would be an open contest and a real chance of Labour rejecting the metropolitan elite and wanting someone with a more ordinary background. I think Andy Burnham a good bet (and have a sum on him) but as a longer shot there are others. Liz Kendall has impressed me a bit, and now is part of the front bench team, one to watch: http://www.lizkendall.org




    Would agree re Liz Kendall. We clashed at a debate in front of leading FTSE CEOs and Trade Unionists. She made the point of seeking me out at lunch and asking if we could meet for dinner. Since then we have had some very good exchanges at quite a few private dinners. She has a brain and uses it to think widely and long term.
  • tim said:

    Yvette Coopers odds haven't moved significantly

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader/bet-history/yvette-cooper/today

    (Click on history)

    Labour getting 40% of 2010 Lib Dems in today's YouGov - over 30% in 2015 and its bye bye Dave
    (These two bets are clearly duds anyway, if there's a vacancy in 2015 Yvette is a 1/2 shot)

    Dud betting tips on PB? Surely not. Remember, Alistair Carmichael is terrific value to be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats. You'd be daft not to remortgage the house.
  • SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Chukka is overrated.Tristam holds promise.But as Mike rightly points out,Miliband will probably be in Downing street in 2015 and then anything can happen.

    Mike says no such thing! Had he done so, he would readily have concluded that there was no point in highlighting the odds available on the two individuals concerned.
    Fair enough!

    The fact that Yvette Cooper`s odds are easing is a sign that the markets think Ed is at much less danger than he was in August.
    No it doesn't!

    It just says Yvette (who she?) Cooper has been invisible and is less likely to replace Ed when he goes....
    So you are saying that Labour will project a first-time MP over experience for PM in 2015.I think that`s very unlikely.
    If the party comes to the conclusion that Blair/Brown experience is toxic then yes. Such a pity both Hunt & Umunna look as though they'd be completely at home on the Tory front bench......

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    Plebgate on BBC again!!!Yawwwwwwwwn
  • Home Affairs Select Ctte not pulling any punches:

    "We find it extraordinary that any witness, let alone a Chief Constable, should seek to
    correct the evidence given by another, particularly when that witness is a sworn officer,
    and given the nature of the investigation on which this inquiry focuses."

    It is a serious matter to mislead a Committee of this House and DS Hinton will be
    recalled to the Committee to apologise for this. If he fails to apologise, that would
    constitute a prima facie contempt of the House. We are referring DS Hinton to the
    IPCC."

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/756-i/756.pdf
  • SMukesh said:

    Plebgate on BBC again!!!Yawwwwwwwwn

    No doubt your reaction would be identical if a Labour MP were involved.....

  • Break your silence: Falkirk Labour Party members tell Scottish leader Johann Lamont ...
    Labour members have demanded Scottish leader Johann Lamont answer their questions on the Falkirk vote-fixing row that nearly closed Grangemouth and explain why her party ignored the scandal.

    In an email to Lamont, local branch members said they felt "utterly disillusioned" that their complaints about the trade union Unite were not addressed by the Scottish party and have urged her to speak at a summit today on the fiasco.

    The branch also claimed the "inaction" nearly led to "economic catastrophe" through the possible closure of the vital Grangemouth oil refinery.

    ... "Many of our party members feel utterly disillusioned and disappointed that the Scottish party appeared to take no action, despite complaints being made that rules were being broken several months ago."

    The official added: "Furthermore, we are aware that complaints were raised that data protection rules were abused, when Labour Party members were contacted by Unite the union, although they were not union members. How did Unite obtain their contacts?"

    The email also claimed that the failure to address the allegations led to the Grangemouth crisis: "We believe that the inaction at that time almost caused an unprecedented country wide economic catastrophe and we would be grateful for an opportunity to speak directly to you, as Leader of the Scottish Labour Party."
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/break-your-silence-falkirk-labour-part-y-members-tell-scottish-leader-johann-lamont.22592711
  • tim said:

    SMukesh said:

    Plebgate on BBC again!!!Yawwwwwwwwn

    No doubt your reaction would be identical if a Labour MP were involved.....

    Would Cameron have sat the CCTV evidence for three months in those circumstances?
    We simply don't know until he ad Sir Jeremy tell us their reasoning
    Will Ed re-open Falkirk?

    YouGov:
    Should: 43
    Should not: 18

  • Blair/Brown was almost all down to Brown's hugely flawed personality. I don't see either Hunt or Umunna being anything like that.
  • Tom Watson 'was behind union vote rigging scandal': Explosive accusation by Labour candidate for Falkirk seat

    - Gregor Poynton, a candidate for the seat, has laid blame with Miliband ally
    - Accused him of 'shenanigans' including packing party with Unite members
    - Party leadership 'knew what was going on'
    ... It is the first time Mr Watson, who stepped down from his frontbench role in the wake of the row, has been publicly accused by another party figure of trying to influence the selection process.

    ... Mr Poynton said that when the party leadership uncovered the allegations it tried to broker a deal with Unite for Ms Murphy to quietly stand down: ‘The party came to a deal... we’re not going to investigate this stuff that’s gone on, we know what’s all gone on, but you have to pull out of the selection,’ adding: ‘Their preference was, we know it’s all happened but it’s better for everyone if you just pull out.’

    Shortly before the process was suspended, Mr Poynton was eliminated from contention when an all-female shortlist was imposed.

    Mr Poynton, who is married to West Dunbartonshire Labour MP Gemma Doyle, said he still had not ruled out being selected when the process is reopened.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485412/Tom-Watson-union-vote-rigging-scandal-Explosive-accusation-Labour-candidate-Falkirk-seat.html#ixzz2jZKZgIJ2
  • tim said:

    tim said:

    SMukesh said:

    Plebgate on BBC again!!!Yawwwwwwwwn

    No doubt your reaction would be identical if a Labour MP were involved.....

    Would Cameron have sat the CCTV evidence for three months in those circumstances?
    We simply don't know until he ad Sir Jeremy tell us their reasoning
    Will Ed re-open Falkirk?

    YouGov:
    Should: 43
    Should not: 18

    Obviously he'll be led by the police on this after calling them in, a decision in stark contrast to Cameron and the Plebgate CCTV
    He didn't 'call them in' - he reacted the day after a Tory MP had written to the Police...and most recently the Police re-opened the inquiry after they were given the INEOS emails.....no request from Ed.....

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Telegraph readers are delighted. That's is a 2000 sample size and ICM is just too perfect to mention.

    " Seventy per cent of voters believe that the BBC licence fee should be abolished or cut, according to a new ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph.

    Nearly half of those questioned – 49 per cent – said the charge should be scrapped entirely, while a further 21 per cent said the current £145.50 price should be reduced.

    There was wide support for the idea of the BBC developing alternative sources of income, such as through advertising, while ending its funding from the licence fee.

    Only one in 10 voters was willing to see the fee increase in line with inflation when ministers next re-write the BBC’s Charter in 2016. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10423117/BBC-licence-fee-should-be-cut-or-scrapped-poll-finds.html
  • Blair/Brown was almost all down to Brown's hugely flawed personality. I don't see either Hunt or Umunna being anything like that.

    Agree - the only leading Labour politician with a touch of Brown about him nowadays is Balls - with his near pathological denial of any fallibility....
  • Blair/Brown was almost all down to Brown's hugely flawed personality. I don't see either Hunt or Umunna being anything like that.

    Indeed. The same thing crossed my mind. The only reason "The Blair and Brown Thing" became such a massive issue is that Gordon Brown was and is a massive bampot.

    Chuka and Tristram may be many things, but neither of them remotely comes close to being a bampot.
  • Plato said:

    Telegraph readers are delighted. That's is a 2000 sample size and ICM is just too perfect to mention.

    " Seventy per cent of voters believe that the BBC licence fee should be abolished or cut, according to a new ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph.

    Nearly half of those questioned – 49 per cent – said the charge should be scrapped entirely, while a further 21 per cent said the current £145.50 price should be reduced.

    There was wide support for the idea of the BBC developing alternative sources of income, such as through advertising, while ending its funding from the licence fee.

    Only one in 10 voters was willing to see the fee increase in line with inflation when ministers next re-write the BBC’s Charter in 2016. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10423117/BBC-licence-fee-should-be-cut-or-scrapped-poll-finds.html

    And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left.

  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    Completely off-topic, but I have decided to grow a moustache for the month of Movember to raise money for men's health. When I looked at the three day mess in the mirror this morning I decided to consult the Internet for advice. Google said.......Be manly. Wear a top hat and demand sandwiches from random women...... Anybody out there have some more practical advice?
  • For those that missed it, here is the great man's latest public appearance: Gordon Brown In 'Ex-Politician' Blunder

    http://news.sky.com/story/1162215/gordon-brown-in-ex-politician-blunder

    When can the electors of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath expect to be informed of their MP's decision?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited November 2013
    tim said:

    Blair/Brown was almost all down to Brown's hugely flawed personality. I don't see either Hunt or Umunna being anything like that.

    Agree - the only leading Labour politician with a touch of Brown about him nowadays is Balls - with his near pathological denial of any fallibility....
    Osborne is the closest to Brown, the Chloe Smith incident and inventing a Libor Conspiracy involving politicians he doesn't like tell you that

    The Osborne who never speaks to the PM, doesn't show him the budget until the night before, plots behind the PMs back and briefs against him all the time? That Osborne?

    You were on stronger ground with Falkirk as a non-story....
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    Good YouGov top line for Labour 41, +9 vs Con on 32, LD 8, UKIP 12, but also encouraging internals for the govt:

    Net well:
    Cameron: -18 (+4)
    Miliband: -28 (+3)

    Coalition managing economy: -12 (+8)

    Unite Falkirk fix?
    Prob did : 41
    Prob not: 11
    Don't know: 48

    Labour reopen Falkirk enquiry?
    Yes: 43
    No: 18
    DK: 39

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cdntzyn7rn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-011113.pdf

    A bit selective there. There is also whether EdM is right to pursue his union reforms (yes by 57-9!), and whether teachers with outside experience but no teaching qualifications should be allowed (63-26 no).

    FWIW I think the 41% is an outlier, but the Labour vote is hardening up. I've been frank before about canvassing showing that the LD-Lab switch is solid but the classic Lab/Tory vote much less certain. That is now becoming significantly less true.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Not sure about either Hunt or Chuka. They both have ambition, but I don't see much evidence of talent. Also neither has any experience in government.

    I wonder if Alistair Darling would be tempted if a vacancy arose?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited November 2013
    Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Just think how much less it would be if they cut the salaries of the overpaid primaddonas being paid fortunes by the BBC, and that's just the management...for starters.
    Sky don't charge 75 pounds a month, I certainly don't pay that and I have sky sports, its about 45 and worth every penny, Most of the stuff on the BBC is lowest common denominator space filling(BBC2 and BBC 4 excepted) and its also jammed up with repeats, Now they want to ruin the Great British Bake Off by putting it on BBC1 .... It'll be vox pops voting people off soon and it''ll ruin it...
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Roger, there's a difference between something that's paid for by tax and something that's entirely voluntary. If people don't want Sky, they don't have Sky.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    From sky.com

    "The Complete
    Bundle

    £67.25a month
    Over 80 channels
    TV Box Sets on demand
    and Sky 3D
    66 HD channels
    240 free-to-air-channels
    All 11 Sky Movies HD channels
    All 6 Sky Sports HD channels"

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    The CBI are predicting 1.4% growth for this year.

    As there has already been 1.8% growth this year,are they suggesting growth this quarter will be negative?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited November 2013

    Good YouGov top line for Labour 41, +9 vs Con on 32, LD 8, UKIP 12, but also encouraging internals for the govt:

    Net well:
    Cameron: -18 (+4)
    Miliband: -28 (+3)

    Coalition managing economy: -12 (+8)

    Unite Falkirk fix?
    Prob did : 41
    Prob not: 11
    Don't know: 48

    Labour reopen Falkirk enquiry?
    Yes: 43
    No: 18
    DK: 39

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cdntzyn7rn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-011113.pdf

    A bit selective there. There is also whether EdM is right to pursue his union reforms (yes by 57-9!), and whether teachers with outside experience but no teaching qualifications should be allowed (63-26 no).
    Feel free to post your own highlights from YouGov without the ad hom,,,,,

    I also didn't mention the mobile phone research, or the change in the teacher numbers - to name but two.

    Neither did you - I put that down to space and brevity, rather than selectivity.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    Good YouGov top line for Labour 41, +9 vs Con on 32, LD 8, UKIP 12, but also encouraging internals for the govt:

    Net well:
    Cameron: -18 (+4)
    Miliband: -28 (+3)

    Coalition managing economy: -12 (+8)

    Unite Falkirk fix?
    Prob did : 41
    Prob not: 11
    Don't know: 48

    Labour reopen Falkirk enquiry?
    Yes: 43
    No: 18
    DK: 39

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cdntzyn7rn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-011113.pdf

    A bit selective there. There is also whether EdM is right to pursue his union reforms (yes by 57-9!), and whether teachers with outside experience but no teaching qualifications should be allowed (63-26 no).

    FWIW I think the 41% is an outlier, but the Labour vote is hardening up. I've been frank before about canvassing showing that the LD-Lab switch is solid but the classic Lab/Tory vote much less certain. That is now becoming significantly less true.

    Union reforms? What's happened so far?
  • Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.

  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    SMukesh said:

    The CBI are predicting 1.4% growth for this year.

    As there has already been 1.8% growth this year,are they suggesting growth this quarter will be negative?

    Perhaps they are ignoring the wrong type of growth and only counting the right kind of growth.

  • SMukesh said:

    The CBI are predicting 1.4% growth for this year.

    As there has already been 1.8% growth this year,are they suggesting growth this quarter will be negative?

    It may be because year on year growth is not the same as quarter on quarter growth.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531

    Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.
    Which shows the distortion the BBC causes in the market.

    Besides, no-one knows how the current licence fee model will be able to work in the medium to long term. New technology is going to render that model increasingly redundant.

    There are many ways forward; sadly, none of them are ideal. The sooner the blind BBC fans realise this, the better for the BBC and broadcasting (and the other areas the BBC's put its tentacles).
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited November 2013


    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.

    Why not just fund the damn thing out of normal taxation? The Inland Revenue are collecting money off everybody anyhow, why waste all that money tinkering around with an extra nationwide semi-compulsory revenue collection system, then trying to enforce payment with made-up stories about detector vans and gazillions of little court cases?
  • Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Not paying for Sky does not give you a criminal record.

    ITV, Absolute, Talksport etc do not charge and provide a good service.

  • Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.

    So you are agreeing with Roger's false statements which have already been shown to be complete garbage?


  • Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.
    Which shows the distortion the BBC causes in the market.

    Besides, no-one knows how the current licence fee model will be able to work in the medium to long term. New technology is going to render that model increasingly redundant.

    There are many ways forward; sadly, none of them are ideal. The sooner the blind BBC fans realise this, the better for the BBC and broadcasting (and the other areas the BBC's put its tentacles).

    I am all for a licence fee opt out. You have said it's unworkable, so what is your suggestion?

  • Hunt is a rising star? Really? If he and Chukka are all they've got then God help them.

    If Ed loses the GE there will be huge infighting between the unions on one side and the Blairites on the other. Personally I think they will lurch further to the Left, which means the drifting odds on Tommy Cooper make her decent value, as the unions can control her through her husband.

    Alternatively I would make Darling a much better bet than the fop and Obama-lite, or even someone not currently an MP. I might have a small bet on either David Miliband or James Purnell, not beyond the realms of possibility as if the Tories lose they will parachute Boris in to a safe seat, no reason why Labour wouldn't do the same.

    Hunt would be a gift for the Tories.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited November 2013


    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.

    Why not just fund the damn thing out of normal taxation? The Inland Revenue are collecting money off everybody anyhow, why waste all that money tinkering around with an extra nationwide semi-compulsory revenue collection system, then trying to enforce payment with made-up stories about detector vans and gazillions of little court cases?

    That would mean direct government-funding, which may not be seen as a great idea. They do this in Spain, I believe, at both national and regional level. The result is clear and pretty open political interference.

  • Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    That's fine. Roger, I don't watch it, but my share can pay for you. Does that sound fair to you?

    Of course, if you tell me I have to watch it in order to become a 'nice' person in your view, please tell me to do so.
  • Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.

    So you are agreeing with Roger's false statements which have already been shown to be complete garbage?


    False is a very loaded word. I'd say he was incorrect about the cost of a top range Sky package. However, I agree with his central premise, which is that for the polling to have any real significance the realistic alternatives to the licence fee should be set out.

  • Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    They should switch it off for a month and give the public back the £12 they have paid for the month. You might be surprised at the result.

    "

  • Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    I only pay £42 a month and that includes Broad Band. I don't have Sky Movies or Sports as I am not interested in those but I am still left with far more channels than I could ever hope to watch.
  • tim said:

    Can't we put the going round in circles whining about the BBC on PB2, where the going round in circles whining car engines stuff is.

    Yes we know the PB Tea Partiers think the BBC is run by Communist eco warriors.
    It's reiterated whenever the Tories aren't doing well in the polls.

    tim said:

    Can't we put the going round in circles whining about the BBC on PB2, where the going round in circles whining car engines stuff is.

    Yes we know the PB Tea Partiers think the BBC is run by Communist eco warriors.
    It's reiterated whenever the Tories aren't doing well in the polls.

    Crawl back under your rock Tim. For someone who spends all day repeating lies and smears about various public and private figures from the safety of your anonymity you have a real gall trying to moan about other people's minor obsessions.

  • Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.

    Why not just fund the damn thing out of normal taxation? The Inland Revenue are collecting money off everybody anyhow, why waste all that money tinkering around with an extra nationwide semi-compulsory revenue collection system, then trying to enforce payment with made-up stories about detector vans and gazillions of little court cases?

    That would mean direct government-funding, which may not be seen as a great idea. They do this in Spain, I believe, at both national and regional level. The result is clear and pretty open political interference.

    What difference does it make, the government decides whether and how much the BBC is allowed to tax everybody in any case.

    Make another quango to decide how much they get if you insist, but this system is ridiculous.

    Something like 5% of the money they collect from the license fee is spent collecting the license fee. (This BBC page says 3.5%, but they're playing silly buggers with the numbers - for example, a chunk of the income they're dividing by the cost is already coming out of taxation and getting paid to them directly by the government, so they'd still get it if Capita went out on strike and refused to collect fees for them.)

    And that's before we start on the costs to the courts, and all the other money they're wasting that ends up getting paid by somebody else.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531



    Which shows the distortion the BBC causes in the market.

    Besides, no-one knows how the current licence fee model will be able to work in the medium to long term. New technology is going to render that model increasingly redundant.

    There are many ways forward; sadly, none of them are ideal. The sooner the blind BBC fans realise this, the better for the BBC and broadcasting (and the other areas the BBC's put its tentacles).

    I am all for a licence fee opt out. You have said it's unworkable, so what is your suggestion?

    I can't see how an opt-out would work without encryption or an upstream Internet connection (both of which would require most people to have new digital boxes). And in encrypting services, the BBC loses one of its important USPs. (I'd love to know if I've missed something obvious that would make it work).

    As I've said passim, I can't see a solution that would maintain the BBC in its current form. As you said below, moving it to general taxation could lead to political interference, and lead to calls from other broadcasters for some of the money.

    That's the problem. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer. I wish there was. Just because I criticise some aspects of the BBC, does not mean that I dislike the totality.

    On a similar point: people were making a big thing of the Great British Bake Off moving to BBC One from BBC Two next year. I can understand why this may have been a big thing a decade or two ago, but in these days of multi-channel, multi-platform entertainment, does it really make a difference? If so, why?
  • Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    I only pay £42 a month and that includes Broad Band. I don't have Sky Movies or Sports as I am not interested in those but I am still left with far more channels than I could ever hope to watch.

    I may be wrong, but I think over 50% of UK households do not have any kind of Sky package. They pay the licence fee and nothing more.

  • Roger said:

    @SO

    "And over 70% do not believe the BBC has a bias to the left."

    The BBC costs about £12 a month with no commercials and dozens of radio stations.

    Sky charge £75 a month with commercials and no radio stations.

    Someone ought to try a value for money poll against the commercial stations.

    Agreed. But that's why, in the end, the licence fee will stay: either the BBC takes ads and blows other free to air channels - radio and TV - completely out of the water; or it becomes subscription-based and the cost of watching TV in the UK increases substantially. It would be politically very "brave" to take either approach - especially if you took the Schapps line and linked it to a supposed bias that over 70% of voters do not think exists.

    So you are agreeing with Roger's false statements which have already been shown to be complete garbage?


    False is a very loaded word. I'd say he was incorrect about the cost of a top range Sky package. However, I agree with his central premise, which is that for the polling to have any real significance the realistic alternatives to the licence fee should be set out.

    When it comes to posters like Tim and Roger I would say 'false' is just about loaded to perfection. The 'throw accusations first, claim you were misrepresented later' style of posting they pursue is one that should sicken anyone on here.
  • Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    I only pay £42 a month and that includes Broad Band. I don't have Sky Movies or Sports as I am not interested in those but I am still left with far more channels than I could ever hope to watch.

    I may be wrong, but I think over 50% of UK households do not have any kind of Sky package. They pay the licence fee and nothing more.

    And many households watch almost no BBC output and yet still have to pay £145 a year for the privilege.

    Perhaps we should introduce a new tax in London on free newspapers like the Evening Standard or Metro. After all everyone has the potential to read them even if they choose not to. So why not tax people for the right to read them?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Hunt could never win under the current leadership rules.

    Ed is too weak to make them fairer.

  • @Josias - I am not very technical, so it is probably me missing something, but ....

    ... As I understand it TV in the UK is now fully digitised. Everyone does essentially watch through a platform - Freeview, Virgin, Sky etc (and the BBC actually pays to be on the privately-owned platforms, bizarrely enough). But given that, why would it be difficult to block BBC channel reception for people who opt out of paying the licence fee? It may need some technical transitioning, but surely it is relatively simple to do. There would be an issue with radio and internet, but that would be a call for the BBC to make. Sky runs plenty of free to access websites and also partners with radio stations - it had a tie-up with TalkSport for a while if memory serves me right. Other stations, such as ITV and Channel 4, could stay free to view via the same platforms, just as they are now.

    All of the above does not seem that tricky to me, which means there is bound to be a huge flaw somewhere; but if on the off-chance I am right, it looks a pretty neat solution to me by easily allowing anyone who does not want to pay the licence fee not to have to, without adversely affecting those who do.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,391
    SMukesh said:

    The CBI are predicting 1.4% growth for this year.

    As there has already been 1.8% growth this year,are they suggesting growth this quarter will be negative?

    YoY growth figures are just as strongly affected by last year's quarterly growth rates as this - next year already has loads of growth baked in, this year was fighting uphill.
  • Patrick Wintour tweets: One Sunday in Falkirk. Even aiming off for author, not sure Miliband can leave this as closed http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/11/one-sunday-in-falkirk/
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited November 2013
    Golly, how amusing to see the reaction to an ICM poll that Martin Boon said down paragraph >

    " Sunday’s poll finds that 43 per cent of voters want to open up licence fee funds to other rival TV and radio companies, who would compete for the money. There is widespread support for the BBC finding alternative revenue streams such as advertising, while scrapping the licence fee, with 63 per cent in favour of such reform.

    However, the findings on the future of the licence fee itself represent the most striking indication of public opinion. About half of voters – 49 per cent - want the fee scrapped, more than double the next most popular option, to cut it, which is backed by 21 per cent.

    Among those aged 55-64, more than half - 55 per cent - want the fee to be abolished. Only 10 per cent say they would support increasing the licence fee in line with inflation, while almost one in five, 18 per cent, think the licence fee should be frozen at the current level of £145.50 for a colour TV licence. Just 0.3 per cent of respondents support an above-inflation increase in the licence fee.

    Martin Boon, director of ICM research, said it appeared that the “writing is on the wall” for the 90 year-old funding arrangement.

    “The public appear to be putting the BBC licence fee on a notice period. They do not think the BBC merits exclusive access to it, and they certainly don't think the BBC should be solely reliant on it. In a multi-channel environment in which half the public think the licence fee should be scrapped, it's hard to imagine that the next settlement can offer generous terms.

    “If the public had their way, the licence fee could easily be seen as the next victim of austerity resetting.”

    Here is very clear polling evidence. But apparently is all irrelevant. Laughable wishful thinking from Labourites who know full well that they get an easier ride, and like State-Things.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Roger said:



    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    Roger, without realising it you are making the anti license fee argument. You CAN opt out of paying for sky, you CAN'T opt out of paying for BBC. You do see that don't you?

  • tim said:

    Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    I only pay £42 a month and that includes Broad Band. I don't have Sky Movies or Sports as I am not interested in those but I am still left with far more channels than I could ever hope to watch.

    I may be wrong, but I think over 50% of UK households do not have any kind of Sky package. They pay the licence fee and nothing more.

    And many households watch almost no BBC output and yet still have to pay £145 a year for the privilege.

    Perhaps we should introduce a new tax in London on free newspapers like the Evening Standard or Metro. After all everyone has the potential to read them even if they choose not to. So why not tax people for the right to read them?
    People pay a tax for their local libraries and schools whether they use them or not, as with the principles of the NHS you just despise British values
    No Tim I don't despise anything much - well with the exception of lying tosspots like you.

    Perhaps we should just randomly pick things out for you to pay tax on even though you never use them.

  • Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    I only pay £42 a month and that includes Broad Band. I don't have Sky Movies or Sports as I am not interested in those but I am still left with far more channels than I could ever hope to watch.

    I may be wrong, but I think over 50% of UK households do not have any kind of Sky package. They pay the licence fee and nothing more.

    And many households watch almost no BBC output and yet still have to pay £145 a year for the privilege.

    Perhaps we should introduce a new tax in London on free newspapers like the Evening Standard or Metro. After all everyone has the potential to read them even if they choose not to. So why not tax people for the right to read them?

    I wonder how many households do not watch or listen to any BBC output. It would be interesting to find out. Clearly all those who believe the BBC is biased have to subject themselves to quite a bit of coverage to make that claim. However, putting that to one side, my point here is more about the politics of changing the current situation. Basically, it would mean a lot of people paying more than they do now and/or it would mean a lot more advertising on all channels - meaning less revenues for all and a consequent reduction in programme quality and choice.

  • TV Licence = TV Poll Tax!
  • So the headlines on R2 about's Ed's company cashback is put up wages, Govt gives you up to a 1/3 back of the cost for doing so for one year only - 2016.

    Sounds massively appealing.
  • tim said:

    tim said:

    Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    I only pay £42 a month and that includes Broad Band. I don't have Sky Movies or Sports as I am not interested in those but I am still left with far more channels than I could ever hope to watch.

    I may be wrong, but I think over 50% of UK households do not have any kind of Sky package. They pay the licence fee and nothing more.

    And many households watch almost no BBC output and yet still have to pay £145 a year for the privilege.

    Perhaps we should introduce a new tax in London on free newspapers like the Evening Standard or Metro. After all everyone has the potential to read them even if they choose not to. So why not tax people for the right to read them?
    People pay a tax for their local libraries and schools whether they use them or not, as with the principles of the NHS you just despise British values
    No Tim I don't despise anything much - well with the exception of lying tosspots like you.

    Perhaps we should just randomly pick things out for you to pay tax on even though you never use them.

    Everyone pays taxes for things they don't use, start with all the rural subsides perhaps, every service in a rural area is subsidised, most people don't use the fire services in their lifetime, people without children don't use schools, libraries are used by a minority, on and on and on.
    Should I subsidise Ivan Camerons medical care?
    Absolutely, its what being British means.

    I am pretty hacked off at having to subsidise Eton and Harrow.

  • Sounds v appealing..

    Under the proposals put forward by Mr Miliband, private firms would be able to claim back about a third of the cost of raising their staff-members' wages to the living wage - amounting to £445 on average per worker, although it could potentially reach £1,000.

    Labour claims the plan will save money because benefit bills would go down and tax revenues would increase.

    But costs to businesses would rise as a result of signing up. And those that do so could only claim the money back for one year.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24786397
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    maaarsh said:

    SMukesh said:

    The CBI are predicting 1.4% growth for this year.

    As there has already been 1.8% growth this year,are they suggesting growth this quarter will be negative?

    YoY growth figures are just as strongly affected by last year's quarterly growth rates as this - next year already has loads of growth baked in, this year was fighting uphill.
    The CBI have made this prediction of 1.4 %growth today.As we have already had more growth than that so far,I just wondered whether they are just being cautious or is there more to it than that?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    BBC

    Slim it down to 2 tv channels, one cutting edge and high brow mixed, the other a BBC1 type channel. Plus regional for local news. Do the same, with radio.

    Flog the rest.

    past four it by a levy on all other broadcasters, levy set by their market share / audience numbers.

    BBC could also do innovative stuff to establish it before settling it, eh Asian.network.

  • What's particularly GENIUS about this is at that same time 2016/17 many of the smaller companies in the UK will be facing new auto enrolment mandatory pension contributions for their staff too....
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    tim said:

    Can't we put the going round in circles whining about the BBC on PB2, where the going round in circles whining car engines stuff is.

    Yes we know the PB Tea Partiers think the BBC is run by Communist eco warriors.
    It's reiterated whenever the Tories aren't doing well in the polls.

    The PB Tory spammers out in force again. I went to bed when Plato popped up out of her normal shift pattern last night to do some overtime, but she's back with an identical posting today.

    Sky Sports isn't bad value at the moment for £34pcm as you get the rugby internationals, the Ashes and indeed and of course all the football, most of them in HD, so I have signed up. The rest of their programming is pretty mediocre and therefore I always cancel my sub (through Virgin) when the cricket isn't on.

    The BBC, by contrast, is superb value at around £12 a month. I suppose if you have loads of time on your hands you might sign up to Sky for the mega US series - but I can't devote 24 hours of my life to watching those so probably better for the box-set fetishists on here.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And that's a totally false argument - given the BBC has a budget handed to it by a compulsory tax of £3.7bn a year and therefore dominates a huge % of the market - to argue that only those who pay who never see a minute of it is stupid.

    If you're forced to pay for something - you're likelier to consume some of it - trying to avoid all of the BBC is pretty hard. And why should a consumer do so?

    Let them choose whether to pay for it or not. If I was forced to pay £145 to Tesco but shopped in Sainsbury's by preference - why shouldn't I pop along and get a dozen bags of groceries that'd I'd already paid for?

    Roger said:

    @JJ

    "The Complete
    Bundle"

    Well thanks for that. Mine is £75 a month so I'll call them!

    If I had the choice between all that Sky gives me for £75 a month or just BBC radio and BBC 4 I'd choose the BBC package even if it cost 5x as much. It's just exceptional value.

    What the BBC should do is switch off all services for a day then get the Telegraph to ask the same question,

    I only pay £42 a month and that includes Broad Band. I don't have Sky Movies or Sports as I am not interested in those but I am still left with far more channels than I could ever hope to watch.


    I wonder how many households do not watch or listen to any BBC output. It would be interesting to find out. Clearly all those who believe the BBC is biased have to subject themselves to quite a bit of coverage to make that claim. However, putting that to one side, my point here is more about the politics of changing the current situation. Basically, it would mean a lot of people paying more than they do now and/or it would mean a lot more advertising on all channels - meaning less revenues for all and a consequent reduction in programme quality and choice.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited November 2013
    @Tyndall

    "So you are agreeing with Roger's false statements which have already been shown to be complete garbage?"

    W"hen it comes to posters like Tim and Roger I would say 'false' is just about loaded to perfection."

    I repeat my Sky bill for TV is £75 a month without broadband phone or anything else.

    You really are a creepy piece of work Tyndall.

    Far and away the most unpleasant poster on here. If I say something it's to the best of my knowledge true.

    MODERATED
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Compel social workers & teachers to report on child abuse...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485825/Esther-Rantzen-leads-calls-law-compel-doctors-teachers-social-workers-report-suspected-cases-child-abuse.html

    Must have had her eyes and ears covered for most of her working career.


  • I wonder how many households do not watch or listen to any BBC output. It would be interesting to find out. Clearly all those who believe the BBC is biased have to subject themselves to quite a bit of coverage to make that claim. However, putting that to one side, my point here is more about the politics of changing the current situation. Basically, it would mean a lot of people paying more than they do now and/or it would mean a lot more advertising on all channels - meaning less revenues for all and a consequent reduction in programme quality and choice.

    I am afraid the argument about quality and choice from the BBC is one that lost much resonance many years ago.

    The BBC is a long way from producing the best programmes these days in almost every genre. Even those programmes they do commission are often made by private companies outside the BBC. If the programmes are good enough to be shown they would appear on other channels if the BBC were not there.

    Like a lot of people these days the BBC is a long way down my choice of channels for viewing. There is only one programme I watch 'religiously' (when it is actually on) and certainly when it comes to current affairs and news output I simply don't watch the BBC output as I find it predictable and biased.

    Would the world be a worse place without the BBC as it is today? Maybe, maybe not. But is it worth paying £145 a year for? For me certainly not.
  • SO - Everton used to be our bunnies.... not any more. Hoping for 3 points, fearing 0 points but would take 1 point.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    The 'Living Wage' thing is another con.

    1 - It is only for 1 year. After which time, there is no guarantee of this so-called Living Wage continuing to be paid

    2 - It doesn't appear that it will actually put more money in the pockets of those who need it - as any additional money will be taken away from tax credits and other means-tested benefits.

    It is another attempt at political sleight of hand - and deserves to be exposed for the sham it is.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    tim said:


    Should I subsidise Ivan Camerons medical care?

    You are a sick, disgusting specimen.
This discussion has been closed.