Lord Duckhunter

In the interests of balance, here's the BBC's offering from the 'Yes' campaign

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12554401

"A system that has let them enjoy jobs for life in safe seats. A system that has bred the complacency we all saw in the expenses scandal."

I'm sorry but this is total ********, talk about dishonest politics. If the "complacency" of the FPTP system led to the expenses scandal, then I presume the PR system used for European elections accounts for the expenses abuses in the EU. If people think Westminister expenses were bad they are nothing compared to what the EU get up to.This women cant have it both ways, if she going to claim FPTP led to expenses scandel in UK, then PR has led to it in Europe.

Even supporters of pure PR should be against this measure. It is hardly any difference than FPTP, but if approved will kill the chances of any other move towards a more proportional system for generations. It'll be just like the EEC Referendum, the major parties will say, "you've had your vote" and that'll be the end of it.

AV is the worst of all worlds, it wont change a thing, but will make voting a damn sight more complicated.

Labour have shot themselves in the foot by electing Ed. A far better alternative would have been Milliband D who could have got James Purnell back as well. Formidable opposition to the lamentable Cameron, Osbourne and Hague.

I think parties lose their heads after losing elections, and end up electing the wrong man. The Tories did it with Hague, whereas they should have held their noses and gone for Clarke. It would have reassured the public that they were going to be a reasonable opposition. I like Hague, but he was too right wing and close to Thatcher for the public at that particular time. When people were giving New Labour a chance and they were in a honeymoon period, the Tories needed someone like Clarke (despite the fact he's hardly a Tory at all). Same now, Labour should have gone with a safe pair of hands (my choice would have been Harmen). Instead of that they've gone with someone from the left, perceived as a union man, and a bit of a policy wonk. If they were going to go down the "next generation" route, should have gone the whole hog and gone for Mrs Balls.I think she's quite impressive and would have looked good against the boys club that appear to run the Tory party. The only issue is her judgement, look at her choice of husband..........

He's an Eton toff and yet compared to Gordon Brown he's a man of the people.

You only have to look at the way Brown behaved when his spin Doctors allowed him to meet ordinary people. Turning up at Gillian Duffy's house and standing on her doorstep, like a 2 bob Neville Chamberlain " I have today managed to get an apoligy accepted by Mrs Duffy", was one of the most pathetic and demeaning sights ever seen of a British Prime Minister.

Who were Brown's advisers through all those years, who were his closet political allies, The 2 Eds God help us.

I was a prosecution witness in a racial motivated assault case. I was in a pub when it all kicked off. Normally I wouldn't get involved, but it was a family pub and i was in there with my kids. The bloke accussed was shouting ****ing n***** and calling the other bloke a co*n. When the police asked for witness', I stepped forward as I didn't want the kids seeing things like that.

It was unbelievably intimdating giving evidence and the fact that there were people in the public gallery made it even worse, as I was sure they were his mates. The bloke got 18 months, but I went around for months thinking I was going to get set on.

My mate follows Boscombe home and away and yesterday he told me he's convinced we're going to beat them. Says they play too much football, rather than get "stuck in" and disrupt our game.He could be double bluffing me, but he was really confident about the game at SMS.

If we win both games this week, things will look a whole lot better.I think we'll beat Yeovil and draw at Boscombe, and will still go up.

Thatcher wannabe with no ideas of his own.

Rubbish, he is just the type of wet wishy washy Tory that Thatcher couldn't stand. He's a wannabe Blair, rather than Thatcher.

"David Cameron is a total bellend. "

Political debate is alive and well, looks like we have the next Andrew Neil on our hands.

People dont seem to be able to get their head round the fact that Lib/Dem election policy pre elction boxed them into a corner post election. They have spent years telling us about how coalition works and has worked abroad, and also spent months before the election stressing they would deal with whichever party had the largest madate from the people. They did this to ensure that their votes held up in England (mainly the south and south east), because had they said they would only deal with Labour, they would have lost a vast amount of seats to the Tories in "middle" England.

Once the election result maths ruled out a coalition with labour, none of the remaining options were attractive to them at all. A minority Tory Govt proped up by a "supply and confidence" agreement with the Lib/dems, would have meant the Lib/Dems waving through a Tory budget and any confidence votes. They would in effect be propping up the Tories, voting with the cuts, but receiving no concessions in return (an even worse senerio than they face now). They could have voted down the queens speech and therefore triggered a new election.In this senerio, they could hardly bang on about coalition policies and working together, when they had refused to do so when given the chance. Their vote would collapse in areas where Labour couldn't win and they would lose seats in traditional "Tory" areas. Remember in this senerio, there would have been no cuts before a second election, and the Tories could well have been rewarded with a majority as happened with labour back in 1974.

So the "least worst" option for the Lib/Dems was a full coalition with the Tories and the hope that they will get rewarded if the economy picks up in 5 years. They also get to implement some of their policies and also get to show that they can work within a coalition.It is a high risk strategy, but far better than any of the others.

Whilst we have FPTP, the best result for the Lib/Dems is always a Labour / Tory majority or a hung parliament with Labour having the most seats, anything outside of that will always cause them problems.

The result of this by election should not be taken as any sort of indicator of the demise of Lib/Dems. Thatcher used to regulary lose by elections, as did Blair.

Lib/Dem support is always going to drop if they're in a coalition. If it's with the Tories, they'll lose Labour leaning supporters and if it's with Labour they'll lose Tory leaning supporters. I've no doubt the sensible ones amongst them would have factored in poor by elections and poll ratings for the next 2/3 years, when deciding what to do post election.

Even with -10 we should have made the play offs.

Pardew's side started poorly this season and whilst they undoubtably would have picked up, dont think it would have picked up much more that NA's side has done. So I reckon we'd have been pretty much the same.

I remember reading an article about how a goal keeper was a poster on his clubs forum. Other posters didn’t believe him so he said he would do something unusual during the next game to prove it was him. They asked him to kick both posts before taking his first goal kick, which he did proving it was him. The story then went on to say that another poster also claimed he was a player and said he would prove it as well. When he asked what he should do that was unusual to prove who he was, the answer he got was “pass to one of our players”. .........Made me laugh anyway.I wish I could remember where I read it.

I think Lambert is a big part of the answer. Last season he was astonishingly good for us, moments of magic, free kicks, long rangers winning games when we were never going to score otherwise. This season he's got the odd goal but is nothing like the player from last season.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Last season I wouldn't have swapped any League 1 striker for Lambert, this year he is just not the same, no matter what people try and say. Contrast his performances with Mackail-Smith's. Kelvin is also not quite as good as the high standards he showed last year and Hammond is also on the downward.

I think we should have made the play offs even with a -10 and not doing so was a failure which is on a par with not making the autos this season.

Hearn just a told a story of how Orients ground was available to buy for £350,000, he said that he would put that amount in out of his own pocket. He went to the fans and asked them if they would rather he bought the ground off the council for the £350,000 or invest it in a centre forward. He said 85% of supporters voted for a new centre forward,so he ignored the vote telling them “that’s why you’ll never have a say in running this club”. His point was that the owners need to do what’s best for the club and not be swayed by Managers or supporters. There should be more owners like him in the game.

Barry Hearn on Talksport now saying how he hates clubs that gamble money they haven't got. He calls them "fur coat, no knickers" clubs. Says they are a disgrace, put their egos above common sense and put local business and the club at risk. Says the 10 point penalty is a joke and Clubs should be relegated 2 leagues. Says he understands the sports business and how a football club has a role in the community, but it needs to be sustainable. He says everyone has ambition, but it needs to be realistic ambition. He is talking an increadable amount of common sense.

I'm not convinced that youngsters nowadays will listen to old pros like they used to. I also think that most modern Managers will try and coach them too much. Lawrie's genius was that he seemed to let the older guys sort things out themselves, now you'll have the Manager making them take the bleep test, standing on the touchline waving his hands about to indicate where he wanted them to run to.

I'm quite new to these sort of things so dont really understand the ins and outs. To me a £5 is neither here nor there, I want to post more than 3 posts a day and particulary enjoy The Lounge and The Arts section. To fully use them, you really need more than 3 posts a day.

I understand that there are a lot of free sites on the web, but I regulary buy mates a drink that comes to a lot more than £5, so I think £5 is a red herring, it's hardly going to break the bank. I firmly believe that if we were asked for donations to keep the site going, then you would raise more revenue than collecting £5 off of all full members.

My mates a Huddersfield supporter and he reckons Kilbane is a liability. It just goes to show how hard it is to pick up an old pro and make sure it's the right one. Savage takes a lot of stick from Derby supporters. Bally and Jimmy Case where great players, but also had a fantastic attitude, Lawrie used to say that Ballys enthusiasm day in day out was an inspiration for the younger players.Paul Scholes may end up at Oldham as he has often spoken of his love for them,but no Bally or Jimmy Case springs to mind.

The golf was pretty poor to be honest, but I'm not a very good player so it was about par for me.

You have argued your side consistantly and presented a a coherent argument. I just disagree, but like to think that my argument is consistent and we will just have to agree to disagree, otherwise we’ll just go round in circles.

Personally I would rather keep the £145.50 and decide where I want to spend that money. It maybe that weighing up all the options I would like to subscribe to the BBC, but I object to being forced to, with the threat of jail, and I don't see why I pay the same amount as Wayne Rooney. We don't pay the same amount for any other public service that the Gov. take money for, so why should the licence fee be any different?

I also think the BBC wastes money and at the end of the day it's our money, not theirs.

So, how's commercial broadcasting funded?

 

If I don't watch ITV can I get my baked beans cheaper because I don't want to pay the bit that Heinz spend on TV advertising?

 

The only way round this would be to make every channel subscription which, I presume with digital broadcasting, would be possible.

I'm not being funny, but I really dont get your point.

Heinz will have a budget for advertising which will remain the same whther there is a public funded BBC or not. Do you really believe that they would put their prices up to advertise on the BBC if it became a commercial outfit. What would happen is they would shift some of their adverts to the BBC from other outlets. They wouldn't want to put the prices up because other brands would eat into their market share.If you object to buying anything from a Company that advertised on TV, then dont buy it. You wont get thrown in jail for doing so.

You claimed that without the BBC, Radio would suffer. I pointed out that the US has a vibrant and diverse Radio network catering for many more people and minorities than the BBC ever do, and yet it's all done without a National Broadcasting Company.The Companies that advertise keep their products at a competitive rate, because if they didn't nobody would buy them.

Anyway I'm off to the golf course, have a good day.

I wouldn't say the BBC was left leaning, but it is liberal Duckhunter.

 

And TBF, a liberal organisation such as the BBC is required to even out the right wing propaganda distributed by the Mail and Murdoch's empire.

I dont want liberal propaganda distributed using my hard earned money. Nobody has to buy The Mail or use Sky, everybody has to pay for the BBC's liberal leanings.

I do not read the Daily Mail (although readership numbers would indicate more than a few "odd balls" do), so that's a rather lazy assumption.

In this thread you've had quotes from The Director General admitting that the BBC was biased to the left, a report by themselves saying they were "institutionally biased" and yet you still persist in the line that they were not. How do you know more than the Director General or a year long BBC commissioned report, really baffles me.

I personally find the make up of the guests on Question Time biased, and certainly two of the programmes were completely and utterly biased. The one aired after 9/11 which prompted an apoligy to the US Ambassador from Greg Dyke, was so anti American it was sickening. And the one featuring Nick Griffin was a publicity stunt unbecoming of a public servcie broadcaster.

I find the whole news agenda biased regarding climate change, and I have found some of the reporting of Council cuts competely biased.I feel people like Foot and Benn, men who have proven to be wrong time and time again over the years, are given too much praise and people like Thatcher and Ronald Reagan never given the respect they deserve.I find their middle east reporting to be a basic Palestine/good, Isreal/bad and everything flows from that position.

But, at the end of the day my opinion doesn't count. There are people with far more knowledge than me (and believe it or not, you) of the BBC who say they were biased.

It's was proved to be "institutionally biased" by a report commissioned by the BBC itself, surely that's good enough as proof for a really bright non Mail reader.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece

Dune, as a free market Thatcherite I would have thought you of all people would want Insurance Companies to set their own premiums and charge what the hell they like.

This is what I call cool,

Sat back laying down some sounds, Jamaican woodbine in hand..........Nice

Fair comment, credit where its due.

 

What about Radio 3, 4, 5-Live, 6-music, 7-comedy and drama, the World Service and the Asian Network? Three of those didnt exist before digital, and I dont recall anything similar being commercially available.

Years of tax payers money thrown at BBC Radio has skewed the market. How does South Florida cater for Hispanics, sports fans, news buffs, old rockers, hill Billies, hip hop, youngsters, god botherers and the assorted nationalities and different music tastes of the local population, when they have no BBC? They have a vibrant diverse radio market and it's not tax funded.