Yea agree, why doesn't the BBC have adverts? I don't think the population would be very bothered would they?

Some more background here:-

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/10/seeds-of-bbc-licence-fee-decision-deftly-planted-by-george-osborne

If it does anything then hopefully it will encourage more people to go out and claim pension credits.

How can an item be essential if you can voluntarily do without it?

You can voluntarily do without education, health care, religion.

Many would argue that access to these is an essential human need/right.

There are many old people that go days/weeks/months without seeing or speaking to another human. That doesn't make a tv license essential obviously but you can see what I am getting at.

It's been live since 2003 so plenty of people have had the freebie.

I think you only get it free if you claim the right pension credits which are one of the benefits that are most often not applied for when eligible. Perhaps they need to spend some money educating older people on claiming these.

2.2 million over 75's live alone in this country (over half of the total). Half of all over 75's are disabled or in poor health so are often housebound and isolated.

TV doesn't solve loneliness but it does often help offer some solace.

[just over 40 per cent of people aged 75+ in the UK won’t be able to afford a TV licence]

The BBC is scrapping the free tv license for over 75s.

"The free TV licence was originally introduced to combat pensioner poverty, which has halved in the last 30 years to 15 percent.

"There is simply no reason why retired judges, lawyers, bankers and doctors should receive a free TV licence when younger generations are struggling financially."

“Scrapping the free licence could potentially push around 50,000 more pensioners below the poverty line,” says Caroline Abrahams, Age UK’s charity director. She adds that “just over 40 per cent of people aged 75+ in the UK won’t be able to afford a TV licence, or will have to cut back on essentials to pay for it”.

Why is there an expectation from the government that the BBC should foot the bill for this? 

@Tikay thoughts?

Something I don't understand about the tories.

They are seen as the party for the rich yes? Not the common person. Hence why, historically, they don't get votes in the north.

Rather than try and change that perception Boris announces he wants to raise income threshold for 40% tax band from £50k to £80k.

So the above average earners get to keep more of their money? Yet police numbers, benefits, local government services continue to go underfunded?

If someone asked me the best way to spend £10 billion, I don't see how coming up with giving well off people more money would be the best most rational and impactful priority?

Say what you like about Michael Gove but he is a brilliant speaker.

Peaked at 6.1 million viewers yesterday for the England game.

Most watched women's match ever in this country.

[When you hear the story, the country turns to Rory.]

Click to see full-size image.

Rory's team just posted this on Twitter.

"More on the latest @YouGov poll, showing @RoryStewartUK leading the race for Conservative party leader, with awareness taken into account"

It's very glass half full. The actual report is here - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kfmg0dljim/Internal_190604_ConLeader_w.pdf

It shows that of the 101 people asked (tiny sample no??), 12 people said he would be a good prime minister, 17 thought he would be a bad prime minister, 12 weren't sure and 60 didn't have a clue who he was.

So of the people who knew who he was, 30% thought he would be good. 12 people out of 41 thought he would be good. (The Boris number is 26 people thought he would be good of 89 that knew who he was).

Apparently that translates to When you hear the story, the country turns to Rory.

This made me laugh.

Do you think each of the following does or does not have a likeable personality?

Boris - 38% like him
Javid - 23% like him
Hunt - 16% like him
Raab - 13% like him
Gove - 11% like him

Not exactly a group of death is it.

Here is the letter:-

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Nigel Farage delivered a letter to Theresa May requesting a place in the negotiating team for Brexit.

Failed to win in Peterborough...

Failed to be elected as an MP after 7 attempts...

Delivering a letter to someone who is about to resign and will play no part...

in negotiations which are not actually happening away...

The Women's World Cup starts today and runs for 4 weeks.

52 matches, all live on the BBC.

The BBC coverage looks good - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2019/06/07/bbc-selection-womens-world-cup-cause-optimism-tournament-taken/

A good place to get team overviews / analysis here - https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-womens-world-cup/story/3722054/womens-world-cup-2019-team-previewsschedulehow-to-watchnews-and-analysis

This article is a really interesting insight into womens football - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/07/sports/soccer/world-cup-survey.html

The England team are supposed to be quite good and expected to go deep. I am going to try a watch a bit and see how we go.

The headline from the Peterborough by-election is that the electorate slightly preferred an anti-Semitic left candidate to the Brexit party.  Neither of the two are particularly appealing options.

The results show some interesting splits which highlight just how much of a lottery a general election would be in trying to determine an outcome for Brexit (hence my view that only a 2nd referendum would achieve this).

There's the obvious Tory/Brexit Party split - a few more Tories going Brexit would have picked up the seat.

There's a less obvious minor party factor, which on this occasion was significant.  The fringe Brexit parties (UKIP - 400, English Democrats - 153 and the SDP -135), picked up 688 votes between them.  Labour won by 683 votes.

The Tory vote held up better than expected and the Lib Dem / Green vote wasn't significant, which is a contrast to the EU election trends.  Not sure quite where the Remain vote landed but presumably a significant part of it still voted Labour, or didn't turn out to vote.  At a national level that would suggest the Tory votes lost to the Brexit party would be more significant than the votes lost by Labour to remain parties, so would give Labour a better chance of a back door general election victory.

The dynamics would differ depending on which parties historically have a chance in individual seats, and this one has very much been a two-party seat through its history, but it's evidence that, no matter how badly run they are, Labour would be the beneficiaries of a GE when Brexit remains an unresolved matter.  That's a scary prospect.

Do you think it might also be fair to say that people want to hear about more than just Brexit?

Labour went in without an opinion on Brexit versus a party whose only opinion is on Brexit.

Interesting that 61% of people voted Leave in Peterborough in 2016 & the Brexit party couldn't get over the line. I don't know anything about the history but it amazes me that the Conservatives & Labour got so many votes given what has gone on over the last 2 years.

Click to see full-size image.

I like this one more.

The climate is ripe for the UK version of Trump isn't it? The alternative candidate, rebelling against the system.

An interesting graph:-

Click to see full-size image.

Remain voters still identify with their local area, and the union, just also with Europe and the rest of the world. It is not an either/or scenario.

I am not really sure what "identify with" actually means though.