Hey there!
Welcome to the Digital Spy forums. If you’d like to join in, please sign in or register.
Sign In Register
Quick Links
- Categories
- Recent Discussions
- Best Of...
«1…22232425262728…107»
jonparadise Posts: 6,164
Forum Member
✭
09/10/23 - 13:29 #602
The Unknown One wrote: »
jonparadise wrote: »
Scratch_Perry wrote: »
Jennyuk wrote: »
Victoria Derbyshire again today and a far better show.
Laura Kuenssberg's father has sadly passed away, hence her absence (unspecified) a fortnight ago and again yesterday.
Whatever you may think of Laura, thoughts go out to her and her family.
How odd, I posted the same earlier in the thread, but my comment was deleted.
@jonparadise
You posted it in the LK State of Chaos thread, this is the LK on Sunday thread. Easy mistake to make.
Doh! Thanks for letting me know. I'm an idiot. 😁
2
NJHAG Posts: 9,795
Forum Member
✭
15/10/23 - 08:44 #603
Scratch_Perry wrote: »
Jennyuk wrote: »
Victoria Derbyshire again today and a far better show.
Laura Kuenssberg's father has sadly passed away, hence her absence (unspecified) a fortnight ago and again yesterday.
Whatever you may think of Laura, thoughts go out to her and her family.
Laura missing again today.
lulu g Posts: 52,812
Forum Member
✭
15/10/23 - 09:03 #604
Victoria Derbyshire is very capable, though.
14
JeffG1 Posts: 15,541
Forum Member
✭✭
15/10/23 - 10:52 #605
lulu g wrote: »
Victoria Derbyshire is very capable, though.
She should have got the gig in the first place. She is a far superior interviewer.
21
Jennyuk Posts: 22,378
Forum Member
✭✭✭
16/10/23 - 04:53 #606
JeffG1 wrote: »
lulu g wrote: »
Victoria Derbyshire is very capable, though.
She should have got the gig in the first place. She is a far superior interviewer.
Have to agree.
9
JeffG1 Posts: 15,541
Forum Member
✭✭
16/10/23 - 16:37 #607
That's the problem with naming a programme after a person when someone else is presenting. Sky have the same problem with their parallel programme Sophy Ridge.
dodrade Posts: 25,093
Forum Member
✭✭✭
22/10/23 - 12:08 #608
Laura still not back, there must surely be another reason for her continued absence besides her father's death?
1
davelovesleeds Posts: 24,580
Forum Member
✭✭✭
22/10/23 - 12:19 #609
JeffG1 wrote: »
That's the problem with naming a programme after a person when someone else is presenting. Sky have the same problem with their parallel programme Sophy Ridge.
Which is now Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.
Sophy now does an evening show called Politics Hub.
3
Damnedunitedareback Posts: 16,976
Forum Member
✭✭
22/10/23 - 12:27 #610
dodrade wrote: »
Laura still not back, there must surely be another reason for her continued absence besides her father's death?
Sad news didn't know her Father had died 😔
2
JeffG1 Posts: 15,541
Forum Member
✭✭
22/10/23 - 15:17 edited 22/10/23 - 15:19 #611
davelovesleeds wrote: »
JeffG1 wrote: »
That's the problem with naming a programme after a person when someone else is presenting. Sky have the same problem with their parallel programme Sophy Ridge.
Which is now Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.
Sophy now does an evening show called Politics Hub.
Yes I thought when I posted that, that I had got it wrong. You can tell I don't watch it, but I have caught bits of Sophy Ridge's new programme. Who knows - maybe we are about to get a re-branding of the programme we're discussing
(It wouldn't surprise me to hear that ratings have improved.) mistermr Posts: 2,078
Forum Member
✭✭✭
22/10/23 - 15:26 edited 22/10/23 - 15:27 #612
Obviously the loss of anyone your close to including family or close friends can be devastating and everyone handles such events differently.
It does remind me of a similar situation when a temporary stand still in was better than the permanent host.
It was a late night show hosted by Jack Doherty on channel 4 in the late nineties. The show ran for 2 series and while Jack was on holiday for a few weeks a young Irish comic filled in for him. The temporary host was such a success he was given his own show which ran for 7 series while Jack's show was cancelled in 1998. I do wonder whatever happened to Graham Norton.
Victoria Derbyshire is much more suited to this Sunday morning slot and I hope the BBC take note but as I've said before I'd be astounding if LK is moved from this programme unless that's what she wants.3
SouthCity Posts: 13,350
Forum Member
✭✭
22/10/23 - 15:57 edited 22/10/23 - 15:59 #613
JeffG1 wrote: »
davelovesleeds wrote: »
JeffG1 wrote: »
That's the problem with naming a programme after a person when someone else is presenting. Sky have the same problem with their parallel programme Sophy Ridge.
Which is now Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.
Sophy now does an evening show called Politics Hub.
Yes I thought when I posted that, that I had got it wrong. You can tell I don't watch it, but I have caught bits of Sophy Ridge's new programme. Who knows - maybe we are about to get a re-branding of the programme we're discussing
(It wouldn't surprise me to hear that ratings have improved.)When Marr originally did the show it was called "Sunday AM", presumably after the host's initials but the title also worked with another presenter. Perhaps it's time to go back to that.
It was only renamed to "The Andrew Marr Show" as everyone referred to it as that.
2
davelovesleeds Posts: 24,580
Forum Member
✭✭✭
22/10/23 - 17:32 #614
SouthCity wrote: »
JeffG1 wrote: »
davelovesleeds wrote: »
JeffG1 wrote: »
That's the problem with naming a programme after a person when someone else is presenting. Sky have the same problem with their parallel programme Sophy Ridge.
Which is now Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.
Sophy now does an evening show called Politics Hub.
Yes I thought when I posted that, that I had got it wrong. You can tell I don't watch it, but I have caught bits of Sophy Ridge's new programme. Who knows - maybe we are about to get a re-branding of the programme we're discussing
(It wouldn't surprise me to hear that ratings have improved.)When Marr originally did the show it was called "Sunday AM", presumably after the host's initials but the title also worked with another presenter. Perhaps it's time to go back to that.
It was only renamed to "The Andrew Marr Show" as everyone referred to it as that.
Also apparently, not that many people did indeed realise that AM referred to his initials, thinking instead that it was time of the day it was on.
4
i4u Posts: 56,114
Forum Member
✭
23/10/23 - 04:02 #615
Have they discovered the cameras can move and we had them moving closer as people talked, but why were they so wobbly?
i4u Posts: 56,114
Forum Member
✭
23/10/23 - 04:12 #616
Although Robert Jenrick denied it, I'm pretty sure at about 35:15 he when talking about 'stopping the boats' did say, "We won't stop them entirely"
i4u Posts: 56,114
Forum Member
✭
23/10/23 - 04:26 #617
Jenrick said he wouldn't read too much into the Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire by-elections, where majorities of 18,000 and over 20,000 were overturned. He said governments tend to lose by-election and pointed to his own election to Parliament in a by-election.
He was elected in 2014 when the Conservative party was in power and he replaced a Conservative MP and gained a 17,431 majority, who is he trying to fool?
2
marjangles Posts: 10,167
Forum Member
✭✭
23/10/23 - 07:48 #618
i4u wrote: »
Jenrick said he wouldn't read too much into the Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire by-elections, where majorities of 18,000 and over 20,000 were overturned. He said governments tend to lose by-election and pointed to his own election to Parliament in a by-election.
He was elected in 2014 when the Conservative party was in power and he replaced a Conservative MP and gained a 17,431 majority, who is he trying to fool?
Himself. The Tories had a bad run of by-elections during the 87-92 Parliament and still held on but it was nothing like as bad as it is now and they weren’t losing rock solid safe seats like those lost on Thursday. Plus the most significant thing that saved the Tories in 1992 was the change of leader after Thatcher became too toxic. And yet musical chairs at the top of the party is currently adding to Tory unpopularity. Plus they have another couple of by-elections likely early next year in Blackpool South and Wellingborough. If they continue to lose on massive swings as we get closer to a general election they can’t keep kidding themselves that it’s all just normal mid-term blues.
The truth about this government losing by-election is that since coming to power in 2010 the Tories hadn’t lost a single by-election to Labour until Wakefield last year since Corby in 2012. Instead they actually picked up two previously Labour seats, Copeland in 2017 and Hartlepool in 2021. It was only two years ago that they held Old Bexley and Sidcup handsomely against Labour. And as you pointed out, Newark was retained in 2014 and Witney and Sleaford were both held by Tories in 2016. So this run of defeats is not normal whatever they say. I’m sure they’ll get back several of these seats next year but these aren’t seats that Labour needs to govern.
I think it’s more instructive to look at the last time the party in government changed. In the dying days of Brown’s government the Tories gained Crewe and Norwich North from Labour on 17% swings and then went on to win the subsequent election. Neither of these were safe Labour seats but Labour’s plunge in both heralded the sharp turn away from them in 2010. To me this run feels somewhat similar and certainly suggests strongly a change of government next year.
He’s also got a cheek saying you shouldn’t read too much into by-elections given that his government’s current trashing of their environmental policies is based on their slender hold in Uxbridge in summer.
5
FrankBT Posts: 4,290
Forum Member
✭✭✭
23/10/23 - 14:19 edited 23/10/23 - 14:20 #619
i4u wrote: »
Jenrick said he wouldn't read too much into the Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire by-elections, where majorities of 18,000 and over 20,000 were overturned. He said governments tend to lose by-election and pointed to his own election to Parliament in a by-election.
He was elected in 2014 when the Conservative party was in power and he replaced a Conservative MP and gained a 17,431 majority, who is he trying to fool?
He's right. Labour overturned the GE reesult, but with marginal wins. and the turnouts were low particularly in Tamworth. Most Tory voters did not bother to vote, so come the GE, unless those Tory non-voters have a dramatic change of heart, -it's not going to take much for both new MPs to lose their seats.
1
marjangles Posts: 10,167
Forum Member
✭✭
23/10/23 - 15:23 edited 23/10/23 - 15:24 #620
FrankBT wrote: »
i4u wrote: »
Jenrick said he wouldn't read too much into the Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire by-elections, where majorities of 18,000 and over 20,000 were overturned. He said governments tend to lose by-election and pointed to his own election to Parliament in a by-election.
He was elected in 2014 when the Conservative party was in power and he replaced a Conservative MP and gained a 17,431 majority, who is he trying to fool?
He's right. Labour overturned the GE reesult, but with marginal wins. and the turnouts were low particularly in Tamworth. Most Tory voters did not bother to vote, so come the GE, unless those Tory non-voters have a dramatic change of heart, -it's not going to take much for both new MPs to lose their seats.
He’s right in that they almost certainly will retake these seats or at least their successor seats after the boundary changes kick in.
He’s wrong to say that we shouldn’t read anything into a party losing two of its safest seats even in low turn out by-elections. Neither of these seats should’ve been anything other than a Tory cake walk just as Old Bexley was in 2021. It’s also only two years ago that the Tories snatched Hartlepool from Labour and came within a whisker of taking Batley and Spen too. And as I said above, Tamworth and Mid-Beds aren’t seats Labour needs to win in order to govern.
It’s also not possible to know that all those who didn’t vote Tory this time didn’t vote at all. Some of Labour’s voters from 2019 almost certainly stayed at home too so there were quite likely some switchers from Tory to Labour. Also worth pointing out that Tory non-voters may remain non-voters next year, especially if they’re not terrified of Labour getting in. It won’t be enough to help these two retain their seats but it will help Labour take a few marginals.
Again I’d go back to Norwich North in 2009. It was another low turn out and the Tories bled about 2,000 votes from their previous result in 2005. However, it was Labour’s vote falling from 21k to 6k which saw them lose the seat. You could’ve argued then that Labour abstentions were the reason for the loss but the 16.5% swing heralded the Labour loss in the GE the following year.
Pretending that these results were anything but a body blow to Sunak’s chances next year is disingenuous. But then I suppose the government have to put the best spin on things they can.
2
Alast Posts: 6,793
Forum Member
✭
05/11/23 - 10:13 #621
Hideous squirming from Dowden.
7
Boulevarder Posts: 1,312
Forum Member
✭✭✭
05/11/23 - 11:02 #622
Piers Morgan spot on in condemning the likes of Johnson and Hancock for making millions despite (or even because of) their terrible failings during the pandemic.
9
i4u Posts: 56,114
Forum Member
✭
05/11/23 - 11:42 #623
Alast wrote: »
Hideous squirming from Dowden.
Asked if he had read the plans to deal with pandemics he spent 2-3 minutes not saying if he had or had not read the plans merely that he was, "across everything I need to be."
As to his answer to the allegation regarding an MP accused of he didn't need to know which MP, as either he was aware of the events surrounding the allegation such as the Conservative party paying the alleged victim or is he saying their are numerous victims of rape by numerous Conservative MPs?
8
i4u Posts: 56,114
Forum Member
✭
05/11/23 - 11:45 edited 05/11/23 - 11:46 #624
Boulevarder wrote: »
Piers Morgan spot on in condemning the likes of Johnson and Hancock for making millions despite (or even because of) their terrible failings during the pandemic.
Rewards for failure.
Morgan was rather subdued, looking for a job at the BBC?
4
footygirl Posts: 35,353
Forum Member
✭
05/11/23 - 16:50 #625
Jennyuk wrote: »
JeffG1 wrote: »
lulu g wrote: »
Victoria Derbyshire is very capable, though.
She should have got the gig in the first place. She is a far superior interviewer.
Have to agree.
Victoria is also much more impartial than Laura. I do get the feeling that Laura gives the Tories an easier time than she gives Labour
8
Big Boy Barry Posts: 36,320
Forum Member
✭
05/11/23 - 16:57 #626
Kuenssberg should lose her seat at the next election.
8
«1…22232425262728…107»
Sign In or Register to comment.
