The switch to digital: a headf*ck for the car industry

Radios come attached.

The issue of the great switchover to digital radio is a tricky one to solve for the car industry.

At home, simply buying a new DAB radio, listening through the internet or even through your TV will solve the problem when the analogue signal is switched off, but all of these are a bit more tricky in the car, which is where plenty of the radio listening audience resides.

So it will be a while yet before a timescale is even set out for the turn-off, but it's another factor that should be taken into consideration when speccing new vehicles, as you can guarantee that the issue will be a whole lot higher up the consciousness of used buyers three or four years from now than it is at the moment.

And rather than boosting the used values for vehicles fitted with radios, it seems likely that those without will find their values dropping.

At present, only BMW, Mini and Jaguar offer a digital radio as standard with every model they sell in the UK, with BMW only as of January and having put the price of the cars up to cover the additional kit. Land Rover is also there with the exception of the entry Range Rover Sport, according to the comprehensive data provided to us by Kwik Carcost, and there are a few isolated commendable standard fitments across the range, such as the new Vauxhall Adam and the Zafira Tourer, as well as various Mercedes and VW models, while Ford is also at the forefront of offering the technology.

But worryingly, at this stage nearly a dozen of the biggest business car brands in the UK don't even offer a digital radio as an option on any model in their range. The car industry has some changing to do. And fast.
 

This article first appeared on BusinessCar.

Photograph: Getty Images

Paul Barker is group automotive editor at BusinessCar.co.uk.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496