Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TheDon]

£7 p/m if you haven't got Sky.

£7 per month, how?

£7 per month more than if it were free to air (taking account of the licence fee being a sunk cost).

£7 per month this, £7 per month that. It's much more than a lot of people can afford or justify spending especially when on a limited budget in an economy where those on limited budgets are being hit especially hard by inflation and are going to be disproportionately hit by an increase in VAT.

You can now get Sky Sports 1 & 2 with Freeview for £7 p/m.

No, you can't.

You can get Sky Sports 1 & 2 for £7 p/m each with BT Vision. An entirely different thing to freeview that requires a BT internet connection and a BT Vision subscription and signing up to a nice long contract.

You WILL be able to get Sky Sports 1 & 2 on freeview via top up TV, however it's going to cost you £22.99 for one, or £31.99 for both.

[Ads]

There was a thread on H&V about it, where one chap reckoned it was £7 for one and an extra £5 for the other with BT Vision. I thought BT Vision was Freeview? I don't know, its not really important in this thread at any rate.

[snowychap]

There was a thread on H&V about it, where one chap reckoned it was £7 for one and an extra £5 for the other with BT Vision. I thought BT Vision was Freeview?

So your 'fact' came from 'one chap on H&V' - fortunatley some of us rely upon more rigorous research. :oops:

I don't know, its not really important in this thread at any rate

:crylaugh:

Of course it doesn't.

Neither the cost nor the accessibility has anything at all to do with the principle of the new government deciding to postpone the decision on whether to change the Crown Jewel event. It's absolutely not a decision about the accessibility to a sporting event by the general public; nor is it at all a decision about who already holds (or might in future be looking to hold) the right sto broadcast it. Nothing to do with money; nothing to do with accessibility; nothing to see here. Parp, parp. :bonk:

[Awol]

zaNu Labour

Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear

Considering the outrage and uproar we saw and heard about protests in and around parliament, I would have expected similar. But the fact that now they have been removed, by using violence, the washing of hands and burying heads in the sand seems to be the new order of the day.

On both sides of the house no doubt

Tra la la la, same horse different jockey.

The current government using the tools the previous incumbents so generously left them in the shed

Tra la la la, never look a gift horse in the mouth

That's about the size of it. At least the Police weren't directly involved this time, probably why no innocent people were killed.

[Awol]

I think it's proving hard for large arts of the media and population to adjust to having a coalition Gov't.

There's still a default setting of a 2 way "battle" where everything is looked at as two great lumps of homogenous, but opposite opinions facing each other.

Straws question makes sense in terms of two party political point scoring - before the election you said "this", then you've gone and done "that".

But if it was phrased - before the election you said "this" now after you've coalitioned with people who think "that" you've had to give ground on it, haven't you, and the Tory "way" has won out on that issue, clearly which is the same thing, in effect, it's a rther weaker point, and shows that the coalition has adopted one of the two opposing views they had, it just shows one way has won out. Where's the story?

The narrative is that there's no money, the underlying discussion is how deep and how fast to go in returning the economy to some kind of balance.

It basically seems that's what's happened is that some Lib Dem sway has taken hold on some things, but the majority sway is with the tories, who have much the larger number of seats. Kind of what you'd guess might happen, really.

It's clear that the lib dems are going to be attacked by Labour - partly because they are in Gov't, but are not the whole Gov't and partly because Labour are miffed that it's not them making the decisions (though they'll be mighty relieved, too) and partly because the playground rules say they can accuse the Lib Dems of all kinds of evil "betrayal".

As snowy said, when Clegg says something Lib Dem - "illegal War" he is attacked for not holding the Gov't (Tory) line, when he says's something on the Gov't line, he's attacked for not saying the Lib Dem view. Yaboo.

Bloody hell, balanced and thoughtful analysis. Should this really be in a bollitics thread?

[drat01]

OK so it seems that if this media story is right (and enough people are saying it now) Tory donors are behind policy - absolutely disgraceful!

Tory looking after their own donors at the expense of everyone else

A Tory donor lobbied the Government to cancel the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, it has been claimed.

Andrew Cook, chairman of engineering firm William Cook Holdings wrote to Conservative Business Minister Mark Prisk calling for the funding to be withdrawn.

The loan to build nuclear power station components was agreed under Labour, but cancelled as part of the coalition's efforts to rebalance the nation's finances.

In a short Commons debate Labour's Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) produced the letter from Mr Cook which she had obtained following a Freedom of Information (FoI) Act application.

She said: "I have here correspondence released as the result of an FoI request which indicates that Andrew Cook, of William Cook Holdings, wrote to the Government urging the cancellation of the loan.

"This approach, from a major donor of the Tory party, seems to provide the only basis for the Government's decision to cancel the loan."

Her colleague Clive Betts (Sheffield SE) read extracts of the document to the chamber. e said the letter, dated May 25, began: "Dear Mark ... I am the largest donor to the Conservative Party in Yorkshire and have been since David Cameron was elected leader. I am delighted that you are at last back in power, albeit in coalition."

Mr Betts added: "It goes on in the letter to say 'I have specialist knowledge of the situation that I would like to share with you confidentially'."

Mr Betts claimed Mr Cook wrote: "The loan is probably unnecessary and possibly illegal under EU rules. I believe the private sector can provide the required finance without the taxpayer shelling out. It's a typical Labour sacred cow."

Mr Prisk said the letter was "noted" but had "no bearing on the decision-making process". The debate followed angry exchanges during Prime Minister's Questions when Mr Clegg was forced to defend the decision under sustained questioning from shadow justice secretary Jack Straw.

Clegg and Cameron really should hold their heads in shame at this. I suspect they will do **** all else except count the extra pennies their backers will no doubt send them

[TrentVilla]

I might be missing something here but I don't think a letter urging the government to do something is quite the smoking gun its being made out to be. There is nothing I can see to suggest that this letter had any influence on the decision, it might have done but it might just as easily have had no influence at all which is certainly going to be the response.

Given that the government are making quite huge cuts to everything I have to say I think the cancellation of this loan is just a part of that, it's not out of character with other decision so I think its a bit of a stretch to claim its the result of lobbying by a donor.

Just my view.

[drat01]

The letter was from Andrew Cook who has been a major donor to the Tory party

"I am the largest donor to the Conservative party in Yorkshire and have been since David Cameron was elected leader. I am delighted you are back in power, albeit in coalition."

To laughter from the Labour benches, Betts continued quoting Cook to add: "I have specialist knowledge of the situation which I would like to share with you confidentially. The loan is probably unnecessary and possibly illegal under EU rules."

So you look at the BS that Clegg and the Gvmt came out with over the past few weeks, different excuses for this cancellation, when behind it all

Cook - chairman of engineering firm William Cook Holdings

[TrentVilla]

Yes I know Ian, I read your first post and the article which siad quite clearly who he is.

I just don't share you conclusion that this letter automatically dictated the policy. Or rather your conclusion might be right but the existance of this letter certainly doesn't prove it and as I previously posted its not like cancelling the loan is out of character with their other policies.

[drat01]

As was said in parliament yesterday

First you blamed the cancellation of the loan on the company's unwillingness to dilute the shareholding.

"Last week you told the Yorkshire Post that the company didn't need a loan after all. This is one excuse after another. You said Forgemasters can find the money for expansion elsewhere. Now we know that they cannot find that money, hasn't the whole edifice of your argument been demolished

All of this changing excuses, when a major donor to the Tory party, a competitor to Forgemasters in various areas starts sending letters of influence. All of this rightly highlighted but not explained away.

Let's see what else happens on this, I suspect there will be more oozing out

[TrentVilla]

Ah, you didn't say they were a competitior of Foremasters. That does perhaps cast it in a slightly different light.

[Clarry]

The current government using the tools the previous incumbents so generously left them in the shed

Absolutely. It always amused and bemused me the number of people bemoaning (rightfully) Labour's infringement on freedoms, but them thinking that the Conservatives would be some sort of Martin Luther King/Nelson Mandela "free at last" party. It's the Keystone Cops handing their truncheons over to the Gestapo.

[snowychap]

a competitor to Forgemasters in various areas

Is it?

From a guardian article:

The government swung into action last night a few hours before two Sheffield Labour MPs named Cook, chairman of engineering firm William Cook Holdings – which is not in competition with Sheffield Forgemasters – in a Commons debate.

From an article in The Yorkshire Post:

Forgemasters chief executive Graham Honeyman said: "I knew nothing about this, and do not know why anyone would want to object to it.

"He is not a competitor; in fact he operates off our site.

"I do not understand why the Cook Group would want to object to something that is so important for the steel industry."

Edit: Also from that Yorkshire Post article, I'd put forward a suggestion that this guy's emails to the Tories might have had something to do with this comment:

Last night Mr Cook said in a statement:"...So it is no surprise that I am strongly opposed to the previous government's hand-out to Forgemasters, particularly when I had already offered, as a local businessman, to help supply the funding they needed."

I doubt the terms were terribly favourable if they turned him down.

[TrentVilla]

Clearly not.

[drat01]

Yes they are in the same area of business. How do I know? lets just say the word from Forgemasters is a loud one. Cook has a lot of interest in what FM do (and more importantly don't do), as Honeyman said the operation off the FM site is a key point, but hey ho, more important is that the Gvmt interests are protected

[snowychap]

Clearly not.

According to the Chief Executive of the company, they aren't.

[drat01]

Clearly not.

According to the Chief Executive of the company, they aren't.

It started as a steel casting manufacturer and steel castings still form the basis of 99% of William Cook's products.

SFIL specialises in a broad range of heavy steel forgings and steel castings as well as stocking steel ingot and bar.

They play in different markets but basically their core business has a lot of overlaps.

[snowychap]

Forgemasters chief executive Graham Honeyman said: "...He is not a competitor..."

[drat01]

Do you not read Snowy or again are you just trying to score points or make arguments?

They play in different markets but basically their core business has a lot of overlaps.

If you actually took the time to get to know how these people work together and the areas of their market places and where they want to be, your views may be somewhat different. But as this is more about deflection from te story I will let you carry on with it, amazing !

[snowychap]

Do you not read Snowy

I have read what the Chief Executive of Forgemasters was quoted as saying in The Yorkshire Post.

I'd have thought he would have had a pretty good grip of 'how these people work together and the areas of their market place' and would be a bit of an authority on who the competitors were in his business.

Or are you suggesting that he isn't?

p.s. Please quit the other nonsense. It's not helpful.