I've just seen that the Beeb have announced a revamp of the R4
schedules, including both moving the omnibus and introducing a repeat
for the Friday evening edition. I don't know when these changes are
coming in but, as it's described as being "this spring", I assume it
will be fairly soon.

> The Archers Omnibus will follow on Sunday at 11am but will be newly available on Sounds from midnight on Sunday morning. The previously unrepeated Friday night episode of The Archers gains a repeat on a Saturday afternoon at 2.45pm.

You can read more info at:

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions>,
aka <https://tinyl.io/ANtf>.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Our entire life - consists ultimately in accepting ourselves as we are
(Jean Anouilh)

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:25:06 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
<nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:

>I've just seen that the Beeb have announced a revamp of the R4
>schedules, including both moving the omnibus and introducing a repeat
>for the Friday evening edition. I don't know when these changes are
>coming in but, as it's described as being "this spring", I assume it
>will be fairly soon.
>
>
>> The Archers Omnibus will follow on Sunday at 11am but will be newly available on Sounds from midnight on Sunday morning. The previously unrepeated Friday night episode of The Archers gains a repeat on a Saturday afternoon at 2.45pm.
>
>
>You can read more info at:
>
>
><https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions>,
>aka <https://tinyl.io/ANtf>.

That all looks jolly interesting.

Now that government ministers only appear to agree to be interviewed
by each other on GB News, couldn't the BBC cut down the Today
programme to - say - half an hour from 06.00 until 06.30 and start the
documentary and entertainment cycle earlier?

Nick

On 03-Mar-24 17:03, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:25:06 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've just seen that the Beeb have announced a revamp of the R4
>> schedules, including both moving the omnibus and introducing a repeat
>> for the Friday evening edition. I don't know when these changes are
>> coming in but, as it's described as being "this spring", I assume it
>> will be fairly soon.
>>
>>
>>> The Archers Omnibus will follow on Sunday at 11am but will be newly available on Sounds from midnight on Sunday morning. The previously unrepeated Friday night episode of The Archers gains a repeat on a Saturday afternoon at 2.45pm.
>>
>>
>> You can read more info at:
>>
>>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions>,
>> aka <https://tinyl.io/ANtf>.
>
> That all looks jolly interesting.
>
> Now that government ministers only appear to agree to be interviewed
> by each other on GB News,
<snip>

Not too sure that would continue, if there happened to be a change of
Government.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 18:39:28 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>On 03-Mar-24 17:03, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:25:06 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I've just seen that the Beeb have announced a revamp of the R4
>>> schedules, including both moving the omnibus and introducing a repeat
>>> for the Friday evening edition. I don't know when these changes are
>>> coming in but, as it's described as being "this spring", I assume it
>>> will be fairly soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Archers Omnibus will follow on Sunday at 11am but will be newly available on Sounds from midnight on Sunday morning. The previously unrepeated Friday night episode of The Archers gains a repeat on a Saturday afternoon at 2.45pm.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can read more info at:
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions>,
>>> aka <https://tinyl.io/ANtf>.
>>
>> That all looks jolly interesting.
>>
>> Now that government ministers only appear to agree to be interviewed
>> by each other on GB News,
><snip>
>
>Not too sure that would continue, if there happened to be a change of
>Government.

So, no truth in the rumour that one of the cost-cutting measures in
the upcoming budget will be to do away with elections, then?

Nick

On 04/03/2024 09:15, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 18:39:28 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03-Mar-24 17:03, Nick Odell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:25:06 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>>> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've just seen that the Beeb have announced a revamp of the R4
>>>> schedules, including both moving the omnibus and introducing a repeat
>>>> for the Friday evening edition. I don't know when these changes are
>>>> coming in but, as it's described as being "this spring", I assume it
>>>> will be fairly soon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Archers Omnibus will follow on Sunday at 11am but will be newly available on Sounds from midnight on Sunday morning. The previously unrepeated Friday night episode of The Archers gains a repeat on a Saturday afternoon at 2.45pm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can read more info at:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions>,
>>>> aka <https://tinyl.io/ANtf>.
>>>
>>> That all looks jolly interesting.
>>>
>>> Now that government ministers only appear to agree to be interviewed
>>> by each other on GB News,
>> <snip>
>>
>> Not too sure that would continue, if there happened to be a change of
>> Government.
>
> So, no truth in the rumour that one of the cost-cutting measures in
> the upcoming budget will be to do away with elections, then?
>
> Nick

Well, I wouldn't be surprised, given that an election in which all
citizens over 18 can vote is possibly the very definition of mob rule.

--
Kate B

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:02:45 +0000, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 04/03/2024 09:15, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 18:39:28 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03-Mar-24 17:03, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:25:06 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>>>> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can read more info at:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions>,
>>>>> aka <https://tinyl.io/ANtf>.
>>>>
>>>> That all looks jolly interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Now that government ministers only appear to agree to be interviewed
>>>> by each other on GB News,
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Not too sure that would continue, if there happened to be a change of
>>> Government.
>>
>> So, no truth in the rumour that one of the cost-cutting measures in
>> the upcoming budget will be to do away with elections, then?
>>
>> Nick
>
>Well, I wouldn't be surprised, given that an election in which all
>citizens over 18 can vote is possibly the very definition of mob rule.

I'd vote for PR but they have that in Israel and the system can make
for unfortunate bedfellows to get enough of a majority to govern.
Which is then the best method? Is mandatory voting a good thing?

On 4.3.24 11:02, Kate B wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't be surprised, given that an election in which all
> citizens over 18 can vote is possibly the very definition of mob rule.

All citizens who have an identify card which previous governments have
told us we did not need in this country for any reason can be identified
and vote. Big brother will know who you are.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

In message <nlfbui9qkv20es19h0l5vt6mt86toqodee@4ax.com> at Mon, 4 Mar
2024 12:32:34, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:02:45 +0000, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 04/03/2024 09:15, Nick Odell wrote:
[]
>>> So, no truth in the rumour that one of the cost-cutting measures in
>>> the upcoming budget will be to do away with elections, then?
>>>
>>> Nick
>>
>>Well, I wouldn't be surprised, given that an election in which all
>>citizens over 18 can vote is possibly the very definition of mob rule.
>
In theory, yes; in practice, mobs don't have the patience to do things
like voting. They want what they (think they) want NOW, and aren't
willing to wait for counting, and that sort of thing. Mobs don't like
secret ballots: they intimidate.
>
>I'd vote for PR but they have that in Israel and the system can make
>for unfortunate bedfellows to get enough of a majority to govern.

Why do you need a majority? But then the whole party system has, IMO,
long outlived any usefulness it ever had, if it actually ever had any.

>Which is then the best method?

(I think STV - single transferrable vote, i. e. you rank the local
candidates; the one with least first choices is eliminated and those
votes' second choices taken into account. Repeat until one local
candidate _has_ a majority [of the votes cast].)

> Is mandatory voting a good thing?

I'd have no objection to it - but I tend to agree with Jeremy Paxman on
that, that if it was compulsory, the ballot should include a "none of
the above" option.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It is complete loose-stool-water, it is arse-gravy of the worst kind
- Stephen Fry on "The Da Vinci Code"

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:32:34 +0000, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:02:45 +0000, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 04/03/2024 09:15, Nick Odell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 18:39:28 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03-Mar-24 17:03, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:25:06 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>>>>> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can read more info at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions>,
>>>>>> aka <https://tinyl.io/ANtf>.
>>>>>
>>>>> That all looks jolly interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that government ministers only appear to agree to be interviewed
>>>>> by each other on GB News,
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Not too sure that would continue, if there happened to be a change of
>>>> Government.
>>>
>>> So, no truth in the rumour that one of the cost-cutting measures in
>>> the upcoming budget will be to do away with elections, then?
>>>
>>> Nick
>>
>>Well, I wouldn't be surprised, given that an election in which all
>>citizens over 18 can vote is possibly the very definition of mob rule.
>
>
>I'd vote for PR but they have that in Israel and the system can make
>for unfortunate bedfellows to get enough of a majority to govern.
>Which is then the best method? Is mandatory voting a good thing?

Most European countries seem to use some form of proportional
representation or two-stage voting system and most of them seem to
have well-ordered governments so I suppose the national mood or
characteristics must explain the basket-cases. We've already had
minority governments in the UK and those with such slim majorities
that they've had to seek co-operation with other parties so I don't
think changing the system would make an awful lot of difference to
those situations.

I think some form of PR where one votes for party lists rather than
constituency MPs would be fairer because there would almost always be
a representative of your point of view somewhere in government to whom
you had the right to turn for advice or offer your opinions.

I think (despite some obvious European examples to the contrary) that
a different voting method ought to put a brake on extremism. Both the
main UK parties seem to have divided up into factions at war with each
other more than their opposite numbers. The result of the five tribes
(now the six tribes) of the Conservative Party warring with each other
has been to drive that party further and further to the right whilst
the factionalism in the Labour Party seems to be driving it further
and further to the right (Er.. Surely some mistake? -Ed.) With some
form of PR, I think many of these factions would then split off and
form their own parties leaving the rumps of Conservative and Labour as
centre-right and centre-left parties with whom the extremists on
either wing would have to negotiate in government and I don't think
that would be such a bad thing.

Nick

In message <7vfcuid4htnsejvrrnqtbpmrbh70khafh4@4ax.com> at Mon, 4 Mar
2024 22:05:39, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
[]
>Most European countries seem to use some form of proportional
>representation or two-stage voting system and most of them seem to
>have well-ordered governments so I suppose the national mood or

(Yes, West Germany - as it was then - was very successful in the '70s,
despite having I think never a majority.)
[]
>I think some form of PR where one votes for party lists rather than
>constituency MPs would be fairer because there would almost always be
>a representative of your point of view somewhere in government to whom
>you had the right to turn for advice or offer your opinions.

The trouble with a list system is that you lose any local connection. I
know the local connection is in many places poor anyway - people vote
for a party rather than a person - but there are cases where someone's
considered a good MP, not because of their party, but their actions. The
list idea would perpetuate the (IMO very bad) party system - how would
it cater for independents, for example?
[]
>other more than their opposite numbers. The result of the five tribes
>(now the six tribes) of the Conservative Party warring with each other
>has been to drive that party further and further to the right whilst
>the factionalism in the Labour Party seems to be driving it further
>and further to the right (Er.. Surely some mistake? -Ed.) With some

Not necessarily (-:

>form of PR, I think many of these factions would then split off and
>form their own parties leaving the rumps of Conservative and Labour as
>centre-right and centre-left parties with whom the extremists on
>either wing would have to negotiate in government and I don't think
>that would be such a bad thing.
>
>Nick

Certainly recent _coverage_ of the two parties has over-used the
word-parts -semit- and -phob-, both of which I'd ban if I was in charge
of news, because they cause a (however momentary) hesitation in
understanding, and in the case of the first one especially does not make
clear what is meant. (I'd force the use of "anti-" where that is
actually what's meant.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I know people who worry more about the health consequences of drinking a coffee
at breakfast than a bottle of urine at dinner
- Revd Richard Cole, RT 2021/7/3-9

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 10:23:12 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <7vfcuid4htnsejvrrnqtbpmrbh70khafh4@4ax.com> at Mon, 4 Mar
>2024 22:05:39, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>[]
>>Most European countries seem to use some form of proportional
>>representation or two-stage voting system and most of them seem to
>>have well-ordered governments so I suppose the national mood or
>
>(Yes, West Germany - as it was then - was very successful in the '70s,
>despite having I think never a majority.)
>[]
>>I think some form of PR where one votes for party lists rather than
>>constituency MPs would be fairer because there would almost always be
>>a representative of your point of view somewhere in government to whom
>>you had the right to turn for advice or offer your opinions.
>
>The trouble with a list system is that you lose any local connection. I
>know the local connection is in many places poor anyway - people vote
>for a party rather than a person - but there are cases where someone's
>considered a good MP, not because of their party, but their actions. The
>list idea would perpetuate the (IMO very bad) party system - how would
>it cater for independents, for example?

Let's deal with the local connection first. Changing the voting system
would obviously mean a shake-up of representation everywhere and I
hope that might be for the better. At present - to name just some of
the layers of government in some areas, we have Westminster
government, national parliaments, regional assemblies, metropolitan
authorities, county councils, unitary authorities and parish councils.
Unfortunately, the black hole which is Westminster keeps sucking more
and more elements of the decision-making away from the further-flung
authorities. It's not like that in other countries, or so I am told.
Decision making starts at the fringes and works upwards only when
necessary. (It's often called out as a failing in the EU that the
European Parliament is there to approve laws, not to make them but the
point is that the laws brought forward for approval have been
formulated much closer to the people in the first place.) In France
the town hall is the first place someone would go for advice,
information or help: in England the civic Parish Council is probably
the last place anybody would think of. If we could give more
responsibility to the lower echelons then ordinary people would be
properly represented at a lower level by people with the ability to
escalate upwards things they were unable to resolve first hand.

What about independents? Well, with some form of PR you'd need bigger
constituencies like, for instance, the old European Parliamentary
constituencies. Let's say, for example, that the UK were to have six
electoral regions for Westminster with one hundred seats up for grabs
in each. If an independent couldn't raise 1% of the available vote,
would they deserve a seat at Westminster? For example, someone
campaigning as an independent as Martin Bell famously did would
probably get in easily but the Stop the Swift Street Post Office
Closure candidate probably would not. But the Swift Street Post Office
closure is an issue that ought to be dealt with at local level by
people who have the authority to do so.

>[]
>>other more than their opposite numbers. The result of the five tribes
>>(now the six tribes) of the Conservative Party warring with each other
>>has been to drive that party further and further to the right whilst
>>the factionalism in the Labour Party seems to be driving it further
>>and further to the right (Er.. Surely some mistake? -Ed.) With some
>
>Not necessarily (-:
>
>>form of PR, I think many of these factions would then split off and
>>form their own parties leaving the rumps of Conservative and Labour as
>>centre-right and centre-left parties with whom the extremists on
>>either wing would have to negotiate in government and I don't think
>>that would be such a bad thing.
>>
>>Nick
>
>Certainly recent _coverage_ of the two parties has over-used the
>word-parts -semit- and -phob-, both of which I'd ban if I was in charge
>of news, because they cause a (however momentary) hesitation in
>understanding, and in the case of the first one especially does not make
>clear what is meant. (I'd force the use of "anti-" where that is
>actually what's meant.)

Of the two word parts you mention, one appears to be a subject and the
other an action: would you like to expand on that or do you think that
it might be a subject for a different discussion?

Nick

I've changed the subject, but it may not show as a new thread in some
newsreaders. If it doesn't but people have the ability to manually split
it, do so, as it moves (descends?) into politics.

In message <j60euid72edlsqhmssr7jgp5c4krhu3ddi@4ax.com> at Tue, 5 Mar
2024 12:12:41, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 10:23:12 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
[]
>>Certainly recent _coverage_ of the two parties has over-used the
>>word-parts -semit- and -phob-, both of which I'd ban if I was in charge
>>of news, because they cause a (however momentary) hesitation in
>>understanding, and in the case of the first one especially does not make
>>clear what is meant. (I'd force the use of "anti-" where that is
>>actually what's meant.)
>
>Of the two word parts you mention, one appears to be a subject and the
>other an action: would you like to expand on that or do you think that
>it might be a subject for a different discussion?
>
>Nick

"Antisemitic": currently mainly being used to attack Labour or some
Labour politicians, especially by (only _some_, not all of) the
Conservative party. Generally taken to mean anti-Jewish, but -
especially since the aftermath of 2023-10-7 - sometimes used to mean
anti-Israel. Those using it seem happier to hide behind that word than
to actually use either of those anti- phrases, I think because they're
afraid of backlash if they actually accused someone of being anti-Jewish
or (less fear of backlash at the moment) anti-Israel. Why (else) do we
continue to use it anyway - when did you last hear anyone refer to
Semites? Use of this word causes slight fog.

"Phobic" - almost exclusively, at the moment, "Islamophobic". Being used
in a similar way to attack the Conservative party, or some members of
it, especially by _some_ Labour politicians. The ambiguity here is that
the suffix (with assorted prefixes, such as arachno-!) has two meanings:
fear of, and dislike (or stronger, up to and including hatred) of. (You
don't have to do one just because you do the other; I suspect that I
fear sharks, especially if I was swimming and one was reported to be in
the vicinity, but I don't _dislike_ them.) If those accusing others of
Islamophobia would clarify whether they meant fear or dislike, more fog
would be dispersed. (Of course, one can fear _and_ dislike/hate
something; they often go together.)

I don't think the majority of the Labour party are anti-Jewish, nor the
majority of the Conservative party anti-Islam. I think plenty in both
parties are at the very least _uneasy_ about what _Israel_ is currently
doing; ditto - though they're more reluctant to say it, and the
accusation is more commonly aimed at some Tories - members of both sides
are uneasy about some aspects of Islamism in _this_ country. (Though
picking on individuals just because they happen to _be_ Islam tends to
backfire - and, again, accusing those who do so of being xenophobic is
also too easy. The mud-slinging side of politics is complicated.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes