Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
Forging (and deleting) emails is very very difficult with all the metadata and all the copies on recipient and back up servers etc
I am fairly happy with the idea of DC giving a stuff about the risk of getting caught whether he cares abot the rrules or not
He might be simply lying here but it would be a stupid and easily exposed lie
If it is true though, Johnson inevitably resigns the day Gray publishes, surely? If not why not?
I have heard it said that there are many commercial TV and radio stations who, whilst moaning about the dominant position the BBC occupies are not quite as keen on alternative funding models as people might think. Any revised funding model which might involve the BBC seeking a share of the advertising market would be a nightmare for them.
Also, some mention of radio stations - BBC stations have enormous reach and listeners don’t currently pay a penny towards them, and no requirement to do so (if not having a TV). I suspect radio is often a forgotten factor when the politics of it is assessed.
I find it a bit of a skewed playing field that, for example, there are four iterations of BBC Radio 1 on sounds. That means that they are potentially taking away listeners from other commercial stations that try to specialise - so Radio 1 dance competes with specialist dance music stations - but the BBC can throw greater financial resources, has a much more obvious presence so can attract listeners more easily, and also can attract “higher quality” presenters as can either pay more or can attract through the kudos/visibility and benefit to the CV of working for the bbc.
There is no need for the BBC to be duplicating these areas and is in fact in my mind unfair competition and really just done for empire building and possibly ego by those at the top.
I might be one of the few on here that listen to Radio 1 dance and Radio 4/World Service. Privatise them and I'm done. I do not want adverts. I really hate commercial radio as it wastes my time and the little brain I've got on incessantly repeated adverts.
Why lose an institution that gives the UK a shared culture?
Why does everything that has helped fuck America's society have to be imported by ideologues and rammed down my small brain by 'dead script' transatlantic think tankers and the political zealots who copy them.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Isn’t it a vote of confidence in “the government” and not “the First Lord of the Treasury”?
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
A formal vote of confidence is in the government, rather than the PM personally.
I doubt there would be a single Conservative abstention on such a motion, anyone so doing could expect to have the whip removed and be deselected.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Early Day Motion, no debate, about as much importance as:
I, IshmaelZ, call upon the PM to resign. Suck on that, fatso.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
Tory pensioners will be furiously they have to subscribe to watch Strictly.
More likely they'll be furious that they have to put up with ad breaks four times an hour during Strictly. If they use the iPlayer and wish to continue, that's where the subs are liable to come in.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
So what is the case for not betting the house on a Bojo resignation?
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Meghan didn't want to live in London; you have zero chance of persuading her on Edinburgh's significantly less obvious "charms".
I would say that Edinburgh has considerably more "charms" than London. But if they really want that self obsessed attention seeker they are welcome to her.
You and Meghan are perhaps looking for different things from life.
But go on, name three things that Edinburgh has for which London has no obvious equivalent. I'll even allow you to say giant pandas if you want.
Nearer to Glasgow. Nearer to Newcastle. The Kitchin.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
Being eager not to think any good of either, many people would probably believe Cummings when he says anything nasty about the PM, and the PM if he said anything nasty about Cummings.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
And I'm equally sure they would be wrong to. And that's not said with any starry-eyed Hyufd style belief in the integrity of Johnson.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
On your last sentence, the BBC has always been attacked from the left and the right (in recent years, more by the right; but in the 1980s, for example, more by the left). Rather than being "a warning sign that it cannot continue as is", maybe this is evidence that the BBC gets it about right?
A question for @HYUFD, if you feel it is appropriate to answer. Has Eleanor Laing been sounding out her electorate and officials regarding Boris? If so, what’s the feedback?
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
On your last sentence, the BBC has always been attacked from the left and the right (in recent years, more by the right; but in the 1980s, for example, more by the left). Rather than being "a warning sign that it cannot continue as is", maybe this is evidence that the BBC gets it about right?
Or that they are continually getting it wrong, just in different ways at different times.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
And I'm equally sure they would be wrong to. And that's not said with any starry-eyed Hyufd style belief in the integrity of Johnson.
Sure, it would be not proven if DC said he spoke to BJ. Or if he said he wrote to BJ but can't produce the evidence. But if an email from him or another spad exists it is highly likely to be trivially easy to find a copy. If it is found he is toast, no?
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
And I'm equally sure they would be wrong to. And that's not said with any starry-eyed Hyufd style belief in the integrity of Johnson.
Sure, it would be not proven if DC said he spoke to BJ. Or if he said he wrote to BJ but can't produce the evidence. But if an email from him or another spad exists it is highly likely to be trivially easy to find a copy. If it is found he is toast, no?
Yes. 'If.' But it's a hell of an if. And I would only take evidence preserved in Downing Street, not anything from Cummings himself.
Mind you, what's really galling about that story is the sheer hypocrisy. But then, he always was a hypocrite as well as a liar, a fool, a fantasist and a failure.
(Incidentally, you may not have realised this because of the restraint with which I'm expressing myself, but I'm not altogether an admirer of Mr Cummings.)
Rushdie wrote something and it was deemed blasphemous. Too young to recall it but heard second hand this was the first time the British political class pathetically capitulated to zealots rather than strongly standing up for free speech.
The protection Harry wants is afforded to working royals. He isn't one any more, of his own volition, and he has the means to pay for private security.
Harry's got enough money to pay for his own security. The police force isn't there to be rented by celebrities.
I'm no particular fan of Harry nor the monarchy in general, but to me it does not seem unreasonable that the Queen's grandson should enjoy armed police protection while in the UK, particularly if he funds it out of his own pocket.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
I have taken advice given on here and sent my email to Alun Cairns my MP imploring him to send his letter to Brady.
For anyone who has made the decision that whoever comes next has to be streets ahead of Johnson, take two minutes off PB and write your letter to a Conservative MP demanding Johnson's awful premiership is curtailed.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
EDM. No debate, no vote.
Yes. An EDM is a bit like issuing a press release. It expresses an opinion, and gives other MPs the chance to endorse it without having to go round asking them individually.
Only the official opposition (i.e. Labour) is able to put down a formal VONC, which then must be debated within (IIRC) 24 hours and takes precedence over other business. It is rarely used because it usually make the Government MPs rally round their PM. Whether that would be the case if Labour puts one down after Sue Gray's report is released is... an interesting question.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
And I'm equally sure they would be wrong to. And that's not said with any starry-eyed Hyufd style belief in the integrity of Johnson.
Hmmm...a shape shifting lizard or "Big Dog". I wouldn't believe either of them if they told me "good morning".
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
I think if the BBC was privately funded through subscriptions and shareholders those criticisms go away. Amazingly it's still not too late for the BBC to be a hugely popular and valuable global company but time is running out, the three major companies in TV media networks are out there buying up the talent.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
"Sir Tony Blair tells T&G he will not join Keir Starmer in calling for Boris Johnson to resign: "I was in Downing Street for 10 years, I understand how these things happen. You can explain it, but you can't excuse it. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen."
Is he looking for a job?
Pretty odd from TB. iirc his chief of staff - jonathan powell was tweeting at length the other day about what a disgrace it was and it would never have happened under Blair or Brown. I think he said they have had more parties in a month than we had in ten years.
Anyone who supports anything knows how the heart sinks when Blair comes along to give it his support. Maybe he’s finally got the message?
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
I have taken advice given on here and sent my email to Alun Cairns my MP imploring him to send his letter to Brady.
For anyone who has made the decision that whoever comes next has to be streets ahead of Johnson, take two minutes off PB and write your letter to a Conservative MP demanding his awful premiership is curtailed.
I would. But my MP makes hyufd look like a bolshie serial rebel.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
Tory pensioners will be furiously they have to subscribe to watch Strictly.
More likely they'll be furious that they have to put up with ad breaks four times an hour during Strictly. If they use the iPlayer and wish to continue, that's where the subs are liable to come in.
For a few quid a month you can get itv player minus ads. No reason why bbc cannot offer the same.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
And I'm equally sure they would be wrong to. And that's not said with any starry-eyed Hyufd style belief in the integrity of Johnson.
Hmmm...a shape shifting lizard or "Big Dog". I wouldn't believe either of them if they told me "good morning".
Quite frankly, I would disbelieve both on principle if they told me that rain was wet and Amanda Spielman was incompetent.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The reason we’re discussing this today is because of Partygate and attempts by the Conservative Party and their media supporters to push back.
Yes, there are people who are not supporters of the Conservative Party who have a variety of opinions on reforming BBC funding. But they’re not why we saw these articles in the Mail.
"But there was a social event May 2020 that should not have happened…
On Wednesday 20 May, the week after this photo, a senior No10 official invited people to ‘socially distanced drinks’ in the garden.
I and at least one other spad (in writing so Sue Gray can dig up the original email and the warning) said that this seemed to be against the rules and should not happen.
We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened.
In my opinion the official who organised this should anyway have been removed that summer because of his failures over covid. I said this repeatedly to the PM. The PM rejected my argument, as he did about Hancock and many others who should have been replaced. The PM’s failure to remove people who could not do their jobs properly made his own terrible decision-making even worse and meant more people died unnecessarily. This problem has got worse throughout 2020. (The ‘chief of staff’ should also have been removed, not just because he cannot do the job but for going to watch James Bond instead of doing his job in the petrol crisis.)
In my opinion it would not be fair for most officials who went to the garden for drinks on 20 May to be punished because, given the nature of the invitation, a junior official would be justified in thinking ‘this must somehow be within the rules or X would not have invited me’.
It seems to me that if the emails referred to in bold exist they will be found. From the wording (SG can dig them up not I can give her copies) I imagine they were from a spad email account to which DC no longer has access, but deleting all traces of real emails is very hard and way beyond Johnson's skills and there's a limit on who he can ask to help. Boris resigns the day they emerge.
DC mighty be lying, but silly to tell a lie so easily disproved. Gray might be refused access to email accounts *AND* not draw adverse conclusions from the refusal. The emails might be competently destroyed (very difficult). Subject to those caveats Boris is toast. The odds do not imv reflect this.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
EDM. No debate, no vote.
Yes. An EDM is a bit like issuing a press release. It expresses an opinion, and gives other MPs the chance to endorse it without having to go round asking them individually.
Only the official opposition (i.e. Labour) is able to put down a formal VONC, which then must be debated within (IIRC) 24 hours and takes precedence over other business. It is rarely used because it usually make the Government MPs rally round their PM. Whether that would be the case if Labour puts one down after Sue Gray's report is released is... an interesting question.
Didn't Thatcher make extensive use of it ISTR? Entirely different arithmetic, mind.
A question for @HYUFD, if you feel it is appropriate to answer. Has Eleanor Laing been sounding out her electorate and officials regarding Boris? If so, what’s the feedback?
Not at the moment, she is busy enough being Deputy Speaker
I have taken advice given on here and sent my email to Alun Cairns my MP imploring him to send his letter to Brady.
For anyone who has made the decision that whoever comes next has to be streets ahead of Johnson, take two minutes off PB and write your letter to a Conservative MP demanding his awful premiership is curtailed.
I would. But my MP makes hyufd look like a bolshie serial rebel.
Cairns is a sycophantic loyalist too. The fact that Bridgen and Chope have crossed the rubicon suggests anything is possible. Just tell him you would hope to see him in Sunak's Cabinet.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
No one gets imprisoned for not paying the license fee. It’s non payment of the fine.
As for 2, so what and as for 3 Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.
Haha! Funnily enough I have Alpha Papa on in the background!
Lovely stuff.
Michaels last ever appearance 😥
He probably doesn’t have any time as busy doing the Meerkat voices for those adverts - something that weirdly surprised me!
Same here. He’s had that gig for many years too so must have been a great income for him.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
That is mind blowing and utterly brilliant. The payoffs from Covid research are surely going to change our world.
Yes.
However effing Boris is selling off the National Vaccine Centre for thruppence before it is even finished.
Not aware of that. We should be looking to develop the industries we have created almost from scratch in this country and ensure that the country gets a return on its huge investment. Do you have a link? Google are not even showing that it exists.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
I think if the BBC was privately funded through subscriptions and shareholders those criticisms go away. Amazingly it's still not too late for the BBC to be a hugely popular and valuable global company but time is running out, the three major companies in TV media networks are out there buying up the talent.
I don't think a "big bang" is realistic and could easily result in a complete exodus from the BBC. It has staff buy-in on a public broadcaster mandate.
Dorries' decision to freeze the fee is correct. Looking through BBC accounts, they have started to turn the ship around since they lost the over-75s funding and the reduction of the licence fee in real terms will force them to continue.
The BBC should arrive at a position in 2027 where it is much less reliant on a completely improbable licence fee continuing.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
And I'm equally sure they would be wrong to. And that's not said with any starry-eyed Hyufd style belief in the integrity of Johnson.
Hmmm...a shape shifting lizard or "Big Dog". I wouldn't believe either of them if they told me "good morning".
Quite frankly, I would disbelieve both on principle if they told me that rain was wet and Amanda Spielman was incompetent.
Most liars tell the truth most of the time, because there is no point in saying you want coffee when you really want tea/a ticket to Aberdeen when you need to go to Penzance. In any case, Distrust but verify. This is about email trails, not he said/she said.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
The other problem with this is that the big streaming sites - despite all their content - aren't currently self-sustaining. Netflix is billions in debt despite its global audience. Hulu has never turned a profit. Disney's share price has been hit by Disney+ and Amazon Prime has the backing of an internet giant. Unless you want a major reduction in quality, if it survives at all, or it to become an investment for a corporation that wants to mimmick those, a subscription-based model is very tricky. And the quality of factual output on those is variable to say the least - as they're often buying in stuff and chasing hits.
It will very much be a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. I'd favour being less strict on enforcement of the licence fee, maybe reducing it and having a 'premium top up' that allowed access to a full range of old shows etc, and allowing it to pursue commercial opportunities abroad - while the government makes a contribution to its news output. Then you keep the principle, reduce the burden on people and get a bit of the best of everything.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Not at all, it just makes the BBC have to go out and earn our money. We'd quickly see money pumped into making 10-12 episode seasons of quality shows. If the BBC were to float it would easily be able to raise billions of dollars which could be invested, just on the basis of what it already owns though the archive and current programming rights from BBC Productions (their internal production house).
The BBC has for the worst monetised media archive in the world, investors would jump at the chance of being part of the monetisation process. It's worth literally billions in licence income.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
Yet people pay, all the time, for something they find beneficial be it Sky or Netflix or newspapers or Amazon Prime. The list is long. But to get people to pay they have to make people want to subscribe.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
No. Because the idea of Cummings giving a stuff about the rules is as ludicrous as the idea that Richard III didn't murder his nephews. And he's not been above forging written evidence about his actions in the past (cf his blog).
I am sure many would believe Cummings over the PM
Many more would believe Billy Liar over either of them.
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
EDM. No debate, no vote.
Yes. An EDM is a bit like issuing a press release. It expresses an opinion, and gives other MPs the chance to endorse it without having to go round asking them individually.
Only the official opposition (i.e. Labour) is able to put down a formal VONC, which then must be debated within (IIRC) 24 hours and takes precedence over other business. It is rarely used because it usually make the Government MPs rally round their PM. Whether that would be the case if Labour puts one down after Sue Gray's report is released is... an interesting question.
I think there is an issue here. I’ve raised before the question of whether Johnson stays on as PM if the Conservative Party issue a vote of no confidence. In theory the two aren’t linked.
However a formal Parliamentary vote is different. A loss on that and the FTPA kicks in automatically. Johnson is required to resign and there MUST be a new Govt (with a new PM in place) within 14 days. Otherwise... election.
DC mighty be lying, but silly to tell a lie so easily disproved. Gray might be refused access to email accounts *AND* not draw adverse conclusions from the refusal. The emails might be competently destroyed (very difficult). Subject to those caveats Boris is toast. The odds do not imv reflect this.
The issue with that paragraph is that 'silly to tell a lie so easily disproved' has never stopped him in the past. He very frequently does tell lies that are easily disproved in the apparent belief - in which it has to be said he's far too often right - that nobody will bother to check. The claims he made about his centrality to the NE Assembly Referendum campaign, where he claimed to have single-handedly led a campaign to thwart Blair and Prescott and in reality worked on it for two days and came up with one slogan, spring to mind.
Unless or until there is actual evidence, you assume Cummings is lying in anything he says.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
I think if the BBC was privately funded through subscriptions and shareholders those criticisms go away. Amazingly it's still not too late for the BBC to be a hugely popular and valuable global company but time is running out, the three major companies in TV media networks are out there buying up the talent.
I don't think a "big bang" is realistic and could easily result in a complete exodus from the BBC. It has staff buy-in on a public broadcaster mandate.
Dorries' decision to freeze the fee is correct. Looking through BBC accounts, they have started to turn the ship around since they lost the over-75s funding and the reduction of the licence fee in real terms will force them to continue.
The BBC should arrive at a position in 2027 where it is much less reliant on a completely improbable licence fee continuing.
But that exodus is what the BBC needs. It's got to cut the waste and concentrate on actually making TV programmes. There's far too many hangers on just collecting a payday, especially in the senior ranks of the organisation. If it goes private and they disappear then that's a net gain.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Not at all, it just makes the BBC have to go out and earn our money. We'd quickly see money pumped into making 10-12 episode seasons of quality shows. If the BBC were to float it would easily be able to raise billions of dollars which could be invested, just on the basis of what it already owns though the archive and current programming rights from BBC Productions (their internal production house).
The BBC has for the worst monetised media archive in the world, investors would jump at the chance of being part of the monetisation process. It's worth literally billions in licence income.
That is a new funding model, no? Which sort of agrees with what I was saying, so I don't know why you started with 'not at all...'
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
I’m not against a debate about the future of the BBC, but do you really think the Mail articles and Dorries’ comments are about that? This is a reaction to Partygate.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Yes, it took me a year or two to realise you can stream netflix without a license. Don't have one, don't break the rules*, revel in the radio and websites you lovely people benevolently provide to me
*Except there is a bug in my browser which opens parliament tv at noon on wednesday, because there is unaccountably no radio feed. I don't watch just listen, so prob ok even if deliberate.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
Yet people pay, all the time, for something they find beneficial be it Sky or Netflix or newspapers or Amazon Prime. The list is long. But to get people to pay they have to make people want to subscribe.
I don't think 30m will pay £11.99/month for the BBC. Even though they effectively do now. The BBC has to offer a better value proposition for that.
TikTok’s capacity to scare the shit out of children in the news today. Apparently yesterday’s scare about Russian activity in the Baltic was, unsurprisingly, exaggerated and misreported on TikTok, which is where most kids get news these days. The Childrens helpline was inundated with calls from upset users.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Not at all, it just makes the BBC have to go out and earn our money. We'd quickly see money pumped into making 10-12 episode seasons of quality shows. If the BBC were to float it would easily be able to raise billions of dollars which could be invested, just on the basis of what it already owns though the archive and current programming rights from BBC Productions (their internal production house).
The BBC has for the worst monetised media archive in the world, investors would jump at the chance of being part of the monetisation process. It's worth literally billions in licence income.
That is a new funding model, no? Which sort of agrees with what I was saying, so I don't know why you started with 'not at all...'
I don't think there's anyone out there saying to get rid of the licence fee but also not replace it with something else like subscriptions. The idea that the licence feel will go but not be replaced is ridiculous, destroying a decades old company that's worth tens of billions owned by the taxpayer for nothing.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
I’m not against a debate about the future of the BBC, but do you really think the Mail articles and Dorries’ comments are about that? This is a reaction to Partygate.
It’s not a reaction since this has popped up from time to time over the past years. The fact is the license fee needs to be modernised. It’s just not fit for purpose.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Not at all, it just makes the BBC have to go out and earn our money. We'd quickly see money pumped into making 10-12 episode seasons of quality shows. If the BBC were to float it would easily be able to raise billions of dollars which could be invested, just on the basis of what it already owns though the archive and current programming rights from BBC Productions (their internal production house).
The BBC has for the worst monetised media archive in the world, investors would jump at the chance of being part of the monetisation process. It's worth literally billions in licence income.
That is a new funding model, no? Which sort of agrees with what I was saying, so I don't know why you started with 'not at all...'
I don't think there's anyone out there saying to get rid of the licence fee but also not replace it with something else like subscriptions. The idea that the licence feel will go but not be replaced is ridiculous, destroying a decades old company that's worth tens of billions owned by the taxpayer for nothing.
I'm not worried that's what people *want* to do. I'm worried it's what will happen because the management of the BBC seem utterly incapable of seeing what's unfolding right in front of them and planning accordingly.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Not at all, it just makes the BBC have to go out and earn our money. We'd quickly see money pumped into making 10-12 episode seasons of quality shows. If the BBC were to float it would easily be able to raise billions of dollars which could be invested, just on the basis of what it already owns though the archive and current programming rights from BBC Productions (their internal production house).
The BBC has for the worst monetised media archive in the world, investors would jump at the chance of being part of the monetisation process. It's worth literally billions in licence income.
You’re right about the archive. The realising of the value of it has been weak. It is full of treasures. The BBC was slow to release material on DVD. Licensed stuff to network then fell out with them. They missed much of the boat with DVD’s releasing lots of material when the format was in decline although they did push niche stuff through the BFI which was good.
BBC Worldwide does bring in revenues too but they are relatively small.
Co productions are also a way to bring new shows to market without the full cost being borne. They have done co productions even with Netflix. With the BBC premiering the drama in its home market and Netflix showing it in other regions.
Cummings v Johnson at Lying is no contest. Johnson wins in the 1st by knockout. He does against allcomers tbf. Maybe Bernie Madoff could have taken him the distance but Johnson would still have done him on points.
DC mighty be lying, but silly to tell a lie so easily disproved. Gray might be refused access to email accounts *AND* not draw adverse conclusions from the refusal. The emails might be competently destroyed (very difficult). Subject to those caveats Boris is toast. The odds do not imv reflect this.
The issue with that paragraph is that 'silly to tell a lie so easily disproved' has never stopped him in the past. He very frequently does tell lies that are easily disproved in the apparent belief - in which it has to be said he's far too often right - that nobody will bother to check. The claims he made about his centrality to the NE Assembly Referendum campaign, where he claimed to have single-handedly led a campaign to thwart Blair and Prescott and in reality worked on it for two days and came up with one slogan, spring to mind.
Unless or until there is actual evidence, you assume Cummings is lying in anything he says.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
Yet people pay, all the time, for something they find beneficial be it Sky or Netflix or newspapers or Amazon Prime. The list is long. But to get people to pay they have to make people want to subscribe.
I don't think 30m will pay £11.99/month for the BBC. Even though they effectively do now. The BBC has to offer a better value proposition for that.
By 2027 it will at least be £9.99 in real terms.
The addressable market for the BBC isn't just the UK though, ita global. A subscription based BBC that made its own productions in the UK and owned the production houses would be able to offer the programming globally. If this was pursued 5 years ago the BBC would already have 70-80m subscribers all over the world paying ~£150 per year for it. That boat hasn't left the dock yet but it is leaving soon.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Yes, it took me a year or two to realise you can stream netflix without a license. Don't have one, don't break the rules*, revel in the radio and websites you lovely people benevolently provide to me
*Except there is a bug in my browser which opens parliament tv at noon on wednesday, because there is unaccountably no radio feed. I don't watch just listen, so prob ok even if deliberate.
PMQ is always live on R5 live if you want to just listen.
That is mind blowing and utterly brilliant. The payoffs from Covid research are surely going to change our world.
Yes.
However effing Boris is selling off the National Vaccine Centre for thruppence before it is even finished.
Not aware of that. We should be looking to develop the industries we have created almost from scratch in this country and ensure that the country gets a return on its huge investment. Do you have a link? Google are not even showing that it exists.
TikTok’s capacity to scare the shit out of children in the news today. Apparently yesterday’s scare about Russian activity in the Baltic was, unsurprisingly, exaggerated and misreported on TikTok, which is where most kids get news these days. The Childrens helpline was inundated with calls from upset users.
DC mighty be lying, but silly to tell a lie so easily disproved. Gray might be refused access to email accounts *AND* not draw adverse conclusions from the refusal. The emails might be competently destroyed (very difficult). Subject to those caveats Boris is toast. The odds do not imv reflect this.
The issue with that paragraph is that 'silly to tell a lie so easily disproved' has never stopped him in the past. He very frequently does tell lies that are easily disproved in the apparent belief - in which it has to be said he's far too often right - that nobody will bother to check. The claims he made about his centrality to the NE Assembly Referendum campaign, where he claimed to have single-handedly led a campaign to thwart Blair and Prescott and in reality worked on it for two days and came up with one slogan, spring to mind.
Unless or until there is actual evidence, you assume Cummings is lying in anything he says.
He expressly invites a check in this case.
And? Like I say, he could easily be assuming no such check will be made especially given the current febrile atmosphere. And if it is made and nothing is found he can just claim the evidence has been destroyed whether that's a plausible claim or not.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Not at all, it just makes the BBC have to go out and earn our money. We'd quickly see money pumped into making 10-12 episode seasons of quality shows. If the BBC were to float it would easily be able to raise billions of dollars which could be invested, just on the basis of what it already owns though the archive and current programming rights from BBC Productions (their internal production house).
The BBC has for the worst monetised media archive in the world, investors would jump at the chance of being part of the monetisation process. It's worth literally billions in licence income.
That is a new funding model, no? Which sort of agrees with what I was saying, so I don't know why you started with 'not at all...'
I don't think there's anyone out there saying to get rid of the licence fee but also not replace it with something else like subscriptions. The idea that the licence feel will go but not be replaced is ridiculous, destroying a decades old company that's worth tens of billions owned by the taxpayer for nothing.
I suspect that some of the stupider Tory MPs may not have been actively advocating it, but the extent of their thinking on the subject hasn’t even considered it.
TikTok’s capacity to scare the shit out of children in the news today. Apparently yesterday’s scare about Russian activity in the Baltic was, unsurprisingly, exaggerated and misreported on TikTok, which is where most kids get news these days. The Childrens helpline was inundated with calls from upset users.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
Have your friends in the Tory party forgotten that most of their supporters are retired, stuck in front of the telly watching the BBC all day, which they love?
Course. The default assumption is that a subscription BBC will toe a political line more closely aligned with Conservative Party thinking, because that will be what the "market" dictates. That may prove to be wildly inaccurate. Moreover. Everyone blithely expects the bits of the BBC they personally use to carry on unchanged, whilst ditching the "rubbish" they don't like. That is an heroic assumption. Try to change owt and there will be a backlash. Look at 6 Music.
Cummings v Johnson at Lying is no contest. Johnson wins in the 1st by knockout. He does against allcomers tbf. Maybe Bernie Madoff could have taken him the distance but Johnson would still have done him on points.
Let's bear in mind that this Cummings story was also the first we heard of the 20 May party and the email invitation to it. that turned out to be true.
Anyway, I give up. I am more firmly convinced than ever that Johnson will go this quarter and am betting accordingly.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
I’m not against a debate about the future of the BBC, but do you really think the Mail articles and Dorries’ comments are about that? This is a reaction to Partygate.
It’s not a reaction since this has popped up from time to time over the past years. The fact is the license fee needs to be modernised. It’s just not fit for purpose.
From the Mail article:
“Senior Government figures were last week incensed by its coverage of Boris Johnson’s apology to MPs for the Downing Street lockdown party, complaining it ‘feels like the BBC isn’t going to stop until he’s gone’.”
And you’re saying this news this weekend has nothing to do with Partygate?
This is serious! It looks as if what was immediately seen of the cyberattack against 🇺🇦 was just there to insert malware that under instruction at some time would more or less destroy all the systems. twitter.com/MsftSecIntel/s…
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
The irony is that the Tories might be the only people that can save the BBC. The license fee is profoundly doomed. But the Beeb will cling on to it our of fear and inertia, unless someone forces it to change,
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
EDM. No debate, no vote.
‘tis merely the stuff of politics, and an attempt to attract a bit of media attention.
Nevertheless, it raises the stakes on Starmer making a move once Gray is published. A decision point for the ‘official’ opposition approaches.
Course. The default assumption is that a subscription BBC will toe a political line more closely aligned with Conservative Party thinking, because that will be what the "market" dictates. That may prove to be wildly inaccurate.
But at that point it's a company that answers to shareholders so if that's what the shareholders want it to do then so be it. I think there's also a compelling case for the BBC to limit its news and sports output significantly to satisfy a bare minimum public service requirement. Everything else behind the paywall.
Comments
If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
I am fairly happy with the idea of DC giving a stuff about the risk of getting caught whether he cares abot the rrules or not
He might be simply lying here but it would be a stupid and easily exposed lie
If it is true though, Johnson inevitably resigns the day Gray publishes, surely? If not why not?
Does this not have betting implications?
Why lose an institution that gives the UK a shared culture?
Why does everything that has helped fuck America's society have to be imported by ideologues and rammed down my small brain by 'dead script' transatlantic think tankers and the political zealots who copy them.
I doubt there would be a single Conservative abstention on such a motion, anyone so doing could expect to have the whip removed and be deselected.
I, IshmaelZ, call upon the PM to resign. Suck on that, fatso.
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
However effing Boris is selling off the National Vaccine Centre for thruppence before it is even finished.
Mind you, what's really galling about that story is the sheer hypocrisy. But then, he always was a hypocrite as well as a liar, a fool, a fantasist and a failure.
(Incidentally, you may not have realised this because of the restraint with which I'm expressing myself, but I'm not altogether an admirer of Mr Cummings.)
Rushdie wrote something and it was deemed blasphemous. Too young to recall it but heard second hand this was the first time the British political class pathetically capitulated to zealots rather than strongly standing up for free speech.
The protection Harry wants is afforded to working royals. He isn't one any more, of his own volition, and he has the means to pay for private security.
Djokovic. Does he get vaccinated or retire?
Boris.
The ministers serving under Boris who are reliant on his patronage, such as JRM and Dorries.
No. 10 staff.
England cricket team (or at least the batters).
England cricket selectors.
England cricket coaches.
BBC board members.
For anyone who has made the decision that whoever comes next has to be streets ahead of Johnson, take two minutes off PB and write your letter to a Conservative MP demanding Johnson's awful premiership is curtailed.
Only the official opposition (i.e. Labour) is able to put down a formal VONC, which then must be debated within (IIRC) 24 hours and takes precedence over other business. It is rarely used because it usually make the Government MPs rally round their PM. Whether that would be the case if Labour puts one down after Sue Gray's report is released is... an interesting question.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
Play nicely, everyone.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Yes, there are people who are not supporters of the Conservative Party who have a variety of opinions on reforming BBC funding. But they’re not why we saw these articles in the Mail.
"But there was a social event May 2020 that should not have happened…
On Wednesday 20 May, the week after this photo, a senior No10 official invited people to ‘socially distanced drinks’ in the garden.
I and at least one other spad (in writing so Sue Gray can dig up the original email and the warning) said that this seemed to be against the rules and should not happen.
We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened.
In my opinion the official who organised this should anyway have been removed that summer because of his failures over covid. I said this repeatedly to the PM. The PM rejected my argument, as he did about Hancock and many others who should have been replaced. The PM’s failure to remove people who could not do their jobs properly made his own terrible decision-making even worse and meant more people died unnecessarily. This problem has got worse throughout 2020. (The ‘chief of staff’ should also have been removed, not just because he cannot do the job but for going to watch James Bond instead of doing his job in the petrol crisis.)
In my opinion it would not be fair for most officials who went to the garden for drinks on 20 May to be punished because, given the nature of the invitation, a junior official would be justified in thinking ‘this must somehow be within the rules or X would not have invited me’.
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/parties-photos-trolleys-variants
It seems to me that if the emails referred to in bold exist they will be found. From the wording (SG can dig them up not I can give her copies) I imagine they were from a spad email account to which DC no longer has access, but deleting all traces of real emails is very hard and way beyond Johnson's skills and there's a limit on who he can ask to help. Boris resigns the day they emerge.
DC mighty be lying, but silly to tell a lie so easily disproved. Gray might be refused access to email accounts *AND* not draw adverse conclusions from the refusal. The emails might be competently destroyed (very difficult). Subject to those caveats Boris is toast. The odds do not imv reflect this.
Entirely different arithmetic, mind.
I think HY is wavering!
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
Dorries' decision to freeze the fee is correct. Looking through BBC accounts, they have started to turn the ship around since they lost the over-75s funding and the reduction of the licence fee in real terms will force them to continue.
The BBC should arrive at a position in 2027 where it is much less reliant on a completely improbable licence fee continuing.
It will very much be a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone. I'd favour being less strict on enforcement of the licence fee, maybe reducing it and having a 'premium top up' that allowed access to a full range of old shows etc, and allowing it to pursue commercial opportunities abroad - while the government makes a contribution to its news output. Then you keep the principle, reduce the burden on people and get a bit of the best of everything.
The BBC has for the worst monetised media archive in the world, investors would jump at the chance of being part of the monetisation process. It's worth literally billions in licence income.
Yet people pay, all the time, for something they find beneficial be it Sky or Netflix or newspapers or Amazon Prime. The list is long. But to get people to pay they have to make people want to subscribe.
However a formal Parliamentary vote is different. A loss on that and the FTPA kicks in automatically. Johnson is required to resign and there MUST be a new Govt (with a new PM in place) within 14 days. Otherwise... election.
Unless or until there is actual evidence, you assume Cummings is lying in anything he says.
I’m not against a debate about the future of the BBC, but do you really think the Mail articles and Dorries’ comments are about that? This is a reaction to Partygate.
*Except there is a bug in my browser which opens parliament tv at noon on wednesday, because there is unaccountably no radio feed. I don't watch just listen, so prob ok even if deliberate.
I still use 'batsmen' but that's out of habit. 'Batters' is actually closer to the original word (which was 'bats') so it's a perfectly fair change.
By 2027 it will at least be £9.99 in real terms.
"Specialists now agree on endemic ending"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3W84wb5jKo
BBC Worldwide does bring in revenues too but they are relatively small.
Co productions are also a way to bring new shows to market without the full cost being borne. They have done co productions even with Netflix. With the BBC premiering the drama in its home market and Netflix showing it in other regions.
AFAICS the solution *may* be the Wellcome Trust, or perhaps University endowments.
But as an act it is unforgiveably short sighted.
That may prove to be wildly inaccurate.
Moreover. Everyone blithely expects the bits of the BBC they personally use to carry on unchanged, whilst ditching the "rubbish" they don't like.
That is an heroic assumption.
Try to change owt and there will be a backlash. Look at 6 Music.
NOTE The PB gathering planned for Feb 3rd has been postponed until March
Anyway, I give up. I am more firmly convinced than ever that Johnson will go this quarter and am betting accordingly.
“Senior Government figures were last week incensed by its coverage of Boris Johnson’s apology to MPs for the Downing Street lockdown party, complaining it ‘feels like the BBC isn’t going to stop until he’s gone’.”
And you’re saying this news this weekend has nothing to do with Partygate?
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1482658344821313539?s=21
Nevertheless, it raises the stakes on Starmer making a move once Gray is published. A decision point for the ‘official’ opposition approaches.