BBC have far too many talking heads, just as they do on election night. Plus, Baroness Lawrence just came on, which caused me to leave the room.
Is the coverage any better on other channels?
The BBC seem to be almost obsessively focusing on the issue of race. Baroness Lawrence (who is never going to be the most fluent public speaker) rather punctured it when she said it was far more important to consider the person and their qualities rather than the colour of their skin.
On Robin Hood energy: it's easy being a not-for-profit when you don't make any profit: they lost nearly £8 million last year. With 120,000 customers, that would mean £60-70 per customer.
They expect to break even this year; it'll be interesting to see if they do without any (ahem) clever accounting tactics ...
Fun and games at Labour’s Lewisham East hustings, currently. The Momentum candidate and favourite to be nominated in danger of being kicked out.
Convenient for Corbyn that his pick is now the sole left challenger in a room possibly full of Momentum members.
Yep, funny that. Jeremy just loves localism and democracy - when it means he wins, of course.
Just imagine the shenanigans if he won an election - Israel might need a few more settlements and I'm not sure the Owen Jones types would survive even the early purges.
Certainly the case does need to be made for privatised utilities and railways and choice in public services but that is not necessarily strictly a Tory issue, under Eden and Macmillan and Heath for example most utilities and even the national airline were nationalised. It took free market liberals and economists influencing Thatcher to see the waves of privatisation in the 1980s. An expansion of Macmillan's house building programme would also be helpful and let us not forget Thatcher's 'right to buy' programme brought millions onto the housing ladder.
Indeed on other issues the public is still pretty conservative e.g. keeping their own taxes low, controlling immigration, support for the monarchy, tougher action on crime etc. Where they have become more socially liberal e.g. gay marriage the Tories have now aligned with public opinion anyway
BBC have far too many talking heads, just as they do on election night. Plus, Baroness Lawrence just came on, which caused me to leave the room.
Is the coverage any better on other channels?
The BBC seem to be almost obsessively focusing on the issue of race. Baroness Lawrence (who is never going to be the most fluent public speaker) rather punctured it when she said it was far more important to consider the person and their qualities rather than the colour of their skin.
BBC have far too many talking heads, just as they do on election night. Plus, Baroness Lawrence just came on, which caused me to leave the room.
Is the coverage any better on other channels?
The BBC seem to be almost obsessively focusing on the issue of race. Baroness Lawrence (who is never going to be the most fluent public speaker) rather punctured it when she said it was far more important to consider the person and their qualities rather than the colour of their skin.
Wow. If she did say that then fair play to her.
I couldn’t agree more.
She did - and it rather took the wind out of the presenter's sails
Sheikh (local Momentum favourite) once chaired a meeting for a minor left-wing group that stood candidates against Labour. The question was whether that constituted "supporting candidates against Labour". Looks as though she's satisfied the NEC representatives that she didn't.
Sheikh (local Momentum favourite) once chaired a meeting for a minor left-wing group that stood candidates against Labour. The question was whether that constituted "supporting candidates against Labour". Looks as though she's satisfied the NEC representatives that she didn't.
Sheikh (local Momentum favourite) once chaired a meeting for a minor left-wing group that stood candidates against Labour. The question was whether that constituted "supporting candidates against Labour". Looks as though she's satisfied the NEC representatives that she didn't.
This is the problem when you rush through a selection process. It means that there isn't time to do proper vetting - which is surely vital in a high profile by-election.
This should have been sorted well before the start of the meeting.
Sheikh (local Momentum favourite) once chaired a meeting for a minor left-wing group that stood candidates against Labour. The question was whether that constituted "supporting candidates against Labour". Looks as though she's satisfied the NEC representatives that she didn't.
Sheikh (local Momentum favourite) once chaired a meeting for a minor left-wing group that stood candidates against Labour. The question was whether that constituted "supporting candidates against Labour". Looks as though she's satisfied the NEC representatives that she didn't.
Sort of sectional nonsense that make one warm to the Lib Dem party.
Sheikh (local Momentum favourite) once chaired a meeting for a minor left-wing group that stood candidates against Labour. The question was whether that constituted "supporting candidates against Labour". Looks as though she's satisfied the NEC representatives that she didn't.
Where the real power lies in Labour today: I'm told by 2 separate sources that Corbyn Chief of Staff Karie Murphy overruled GenSec Jennie Formby and NEC org sub chair Jim Kennedy to put Momentum-backed @SakinaZS back on #LewishamEast shortlist. V significant.
Where the real power lies in Labour today: I'm told by 2 separate sources that Corbyn Chief of Staff Karie Murphy overruled GenSec Jennie Formby and NEC org sub chair Jim Kennedy to put Momentum-backed @SakinaZS back on #LewishamEast shortlist. V significant.
Paul Waugh
Surely the rules must be clear? Who has the final say?
Where the real power lies in Labour today: I'm told by 2 separate sources that Corbyn Chief of Staff Karie Murphy overruled GenSec Jennie Formby and NEC org sub chair Jim Kennedy to put Momentum-backed @SakinaZS back on #LewishamEast shortlist. V significant.
Paul Waugh
The joys of local democracy - being manipulated by McLuskey and Corbyn.
Where the real power lies in Labour today: I'm told by 2 separate sources that Corbyn Chief of Staff Karie Murphy overruled GenSec Jennie Formby and NEC org sub chair Jim Kennedy to put Momentum-backed @SakinaZS back on #LewishamEast shortlist. V significant.
Paul Waugh
Er. Does she have the authority to do that? I thought NEC ran this process.
What has brought Capitalism into disrepute is its headlong drive for globalisation, with well paid jobs being off shored along with the profits. Capitalists need to remember that their workers are also the consumers that keep the whole system functional.
I am no advocate of renationalisation of industry or utilities, but there is little love out there for the companies that have fed on the carrion of British Industry.
Actually the key thing that brings capitalism into disrepute is that it is rewarding instead of punishing failure at the moment.
If some banks had closed when they had gone bust and some bankers fined and jailed good and hard for false accounting then perhaps there would be a feeling at least they were being punished for their failures.
As it is, the state stepped in to rescue them, so the bankers who had lost our money were bailed out with another pot of our money so they could continue to be rich and successful at our expense. Meanwhile, we get more heavily taxed and our public services are cut to pay for it.
Now, before anyone tells me that's not exactly what happened, I know that. I know also that the City in particular and banking generally paid a huge share of national tax that paid for those essential services. I also know the consequences of not acting would have been worse. I further know that nobody was guiltless in terms of the age of excess - least of all people who voted in Blair and Brown three times. Above all I know that it's not just banks - we could mention Philip Green, Carillon or the BatshitCrazy woman who ran a pseudo charity in London on what seems to have been much the same basis.
I do say however that is what is perceived to have happened. And nothing discredits a system supposed to reward success and punish failure than a perception that it is punishing success based on hard work, honesty and thrift while rewarding failure based on greed, profligacy and criminality. That is where Trump, Corbyn, Tsipras, Podema and Beppe Grillo come in.
It is also where Brexit comes in. With hindsight, however true it may be, was it really wise to have lots of these despised bankers tell us it would be disastrous for the City?
Some excellent comments this morning. @ydoethur - I agree entirely with your assessment. My feeling is that whether it's big business, big charities, the public sector, there is a class of people who are untouchable. It doesn't matter how useless they are, they get away with it.
With regards to privatization, I'd recommend a piece in the FT. It's called "Returning the UK’s privatised services to the public." Their feeling was that water was a more dubious privatization than railways.
I would also echo the point made by @JosiasJessop about the management of the electrification projects. Everyone's getting worked up about the East Coast franchise but that is small fry compared with the complete horlicks the DfT and Network Rail have made of the electrification of the Great Western Mainline. The problem is, our politicians want to announce nice shiny new projects. But when the real costs are revealed, they bottle it. This could very much happen with HS2.
I have to say, I think Sky's coverage is a bit better than the BBC's. They have actually got a decent commentator rather than just having the talking heads talking loudly over the coverage.
I have to say, I think Sky's coverage is a bit better than the BBC's. They have actually got a decent commentator rather than just having the talking heads talking loudly over the coverage.
The Royal Youtube channel (no commentary) has the footage a bit ahead of Sky - but agree, the Sky commentator is measured and informative
Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').
Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
Oopps ... Titter ....
The Queen's father was of course Duke of York before becoming George VI albeit there was the interval of his brother inheriting from their father in January 1936 before abdicating in December.
Yes - but the King wasn't Duke of York, although he had been prior to becoming King. The title was created for George VI (Prince Albert as he then was).
Quite so. The Dukedom of York being a new creation each time as when previous Dukes became King their titles merged into the crown. The present Duke being the eight creation (or more accurately ninth including Henry Benedict - Jacobite Duke of York - second son of King James VIII/III.)
He wasn't Duke of York, although he claimed the title. You have to be confirmed in the title by the Sovereign before inheriting.
Incorrect.
Henry was born in Rome on 6th March 1725 and presented by his father, King James VIII/III, to Pope Benedict XIII that same day with the words :
"I present to your Holiness the Duke of York, that you may make him a Christian."
The King issued letters patent that same month.
Incorrect, Your Grace - as a King's own title has to be confirmed by acclamation of the Great Council (by tradition) the people of London and by coronation.
None of those happened to James the II and VII's son, therefore he was not the king.
The recognition of two foreign potentates (in this case the French and the Papacy) is irrelevant.
Not that it matters as he had no children either (or none he could admit to, anyway)!
For republicans bored with too much BBC genuflecting I can stronly recommend a film recently on the BBC now on I-player called 'Kajaki'. A true story of a small group of British troops in Afghanistan but don't be put off. Had a lot of the qualities and subtlety of 'No Mans Land.'
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Wondering if they will have those little burgers at the reception. Classy.
I was recently at a wedding at Dalhousie Castle, where they served up little balls of haggis, with champagne, prior to the lunch. They were absolutely delicious.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
It'll be nothing like this, though.
I do hope her previous careers may help her, because the media won't.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
Not quite to the same extent, I would say - she had a decent TV career, but if you don't watch Suits it's not like most places in the world will have heard of her.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
I’m finding it quite moving.
But it pales in comparison to the Lewisham hustings.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
Not quite to the same extent, I would say - she had a decent TV career, but if you don't watch Suits it's not like most places in the world will have heard of her.
Suits will be enough to have got her papped every time she popped out for a bottle of milk.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
It'll be nothing like this, though.
I do hope her previous careers may help her, because the media won't.
I think our media is very different today. Of course they'll get a lot of attention, but I don't think it's quite as intrusive as it once was. Certainly the press seem to give the Cambridge's a lot of respect. Hell, that bloke who tweets the front pages even went to the bother of covering up embargoed pictures of the new prince!
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
Not quite to the same extent, I would say - she had a decent TV career, but if you don't watch Suits it's not like most places in the world will have heard of her.
Suits will be enough to have got her papped every time she popped out for a bottle of milk.
I was thinking more once she was away from LA (or Toronto, or wherever it is filmed) she could be fairly unobtrusive.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
It'll be nothing like this, though.
I do hope her previous careers may help her, because the media won't.
I think our media is very different today. Of course they'll get a lot of attention, but I don't think it's quite as intrusive as it once was. Certainly the press seem to give the Cambridge's a lot of respect. Hell, that bloke who tweets the front pages even went to the bother of covering up embargoed pictures of the new prince!
I hope you're right, and wish the happy couple all the best in their marriage.
Though I fear their main problem will come from the US media, who will have less restrictions and an excuse given her US heritage.
Just over half of children are born within marriage, and a lot of people get married after having children. Perhaps 70% or so, but the proportion is much higher among the better off.
The merest trace of a tear is running down my cheek.
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
Meghan will be used to the media spotlight from her acting career.
It'll be nothing like this, though.
I do hope her previous careers may help her, because the media won't.
I think our media is very different today. Of course they'll get a lot of attention, but I don't think it's quite as intrusive as it once was. Certainly the press seem to give the Cambridge's a lot of respect. Hell, that bloke who tweets the front pages even went to the bother of covering up embargoed pictures of the new prince!
The American press, on the other hand, have very few scruples about publishing absolutely anything they think will sell papers or clicks, and certainly no fans of showing deference to royalty.
Comments
Is the coverage any better on other channels?
If so I'll have to strike you off the guest list for the Auchentennach Garden Party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N42MQJX4KoY
Sky is talking heads too...
They expect to break even this year; it'll be interesting to see if they do without any (ahem) clever accounting tactics ...
Indeed on other issues the public is still pretty conservative e.g. keeping their own taxes low, controlling immigration, support for the monarchy, tougher action on crime etc. Where they have become more socially liberal e.g. gay marriage the Tories have now aligned with public opinion anyway
I couldn’t agree more.
eh????
Far too much chatting with the riff-raff going on.
CDU/CSU 33.5%
SPD 17.7%
AfD 13.7%
Grüne 12.1%
Linke 10.0%
FDP 8.4%
Others 4.6%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
This should have been sorted well before the start of the meeting.
An all-PPE shortlist would have avoided all this nonsense.
V significant.
Paul Waugh
Chortle .....
What matters most - Momentum or Labour?
Challenge coming?
The flute is such a beautiful instrument.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28154066/market?marketId=1.143666825
With regards to privatization, I'd recommend a piece in the FT. It's called "Returning the UK’s privatised services to the public." Their feeling was that water was a more dubious privatization than railways.
I would also echo the point made by @JosiasJessop about the management of the electrification projects. Everyone's getting worked up about the East Coast franchise but that is small fry compared with the complete horlicks the DfT and Network Rail have made of the electrification of the Great Western Mainline. The problem is, our politicians want to announce nice shiny new projects. But when the real costs are revealed, they bottle it. This could very much happen with HS2.
But then, he couldn't be in the same room as cheese either.
1 Indonesia
2 Royal Wedding
3...
9 Meghan
10 Prince Harry
Almost as if the day is more about Meghan....
None of those happened to James the II and VII's son, therefore he was not the king.
The recognition of two foreign potentates (in this case the French and the Papacy) is irrelevant.
Not that it matters as he had no children either (or none he could admit to, anyway)!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3622120/
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1ZkJzVbOpoyJv?t=2m2s
Usually at weddings I say: "Another poor man goes to his doom." On this occasion, with the media she and her children will be facing, I'll change it to: "another poor woman goes to her doom."
I do hope her previous careers may help her, because the media won't.
But it pales in comparison to the Lewisham hustings.
I’m told that back in Dubai there are large parties happening for both events today.
Leaving aside all the pomp and ceremony (and I'd argue no-one does that quite as well as us), St George's Chapel looks absolutely stupendous.
Though I do wonder how many people will be wondering how they got permission to get married in Hogwarts ...
And we do it so extremely well.
Though I fear their main problem will come from the US media, who will have less restrictions and an excuse given her US heritage.
Apparently love has power. I'm just waiting for him to break into song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_zHQ6kFuQ0
Calm down mate, you’re in England.
It’s getting a bit awkward.