Declasration of interest - I sub to Netflix at £5.99, and watch their stuff occasionally. Their range is generally downmarket too, though that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.
LOL - man of the people Nick Palmer speaks.
I bet Nick Palmer watches BBC about eight times a year. The News, and maybe the odd Nature documentary
What determines your class? A third (33 per cent) responded that the greatest indicator of someone’s class in the UK is their income level, while 23 per cent think it is their inherited wealth, 13 per cent their education, and 12 per cent their profession (19 per cent didn’t know). https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1483076164231041029?s=20
No, that's never going to work. It needs to be a catch all service like Netflix. Local news/weather/sport/radio can be funded out of general taxation. Everything should be done commercially and not limited by the licence fee.
The BBC needs to be able to get to £10bn in revenue in 5 years time, that's a 2.5x per year increase from today. The licence fee or keeping its current structure with some modular basis won't work. If it can't do that it becomes a small inwardly facing producer of EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing.
I must confess I'm fairly agnostic about all of this.
I do detect a hint of political "revenge" from many on the Right (the BBC has never been "one of us") but to be fair the Left also feels habitually wronged by the Beeb and part of me thinks if you are annoying both sides you're doing a good job.
I presume the problem is the enforced annual subscription known as the licence fee. Unfortunately, that looks a relic of a bygone age. Television is as much a commodity as anything else. You can have as much or as little tv as you want or are willing to pay for.
Perhaps we should treat television like the Health Service - basically free at point of viewing but with a few extra channels available (call it BUPA-vision) for those who want to pay. As long as we have a basic entitlement of entertainment, education and information available to all free of charge, those who want the frills or thills of Netflix or Racing TV and the like can pay.
That is more or less what Max is suggesting.
I'd differ from him in that I'd retain a bit more of programming/commissioning within the public service rump. With a brief to develop only new UK talent/productions.
BoZo clings on and opposition politicians call him a liar in every TV interview until he does go
It’s open season.
Felling lazy, stupid, dishevelled water-buffalo might not be the prettiest sport, but hey, it’s tremendous fun.
Bloody dangerous quarry, second only to Cape buffalo. Their skulls are so thick they are effectively bullet proof, and if they charge you that's pretty much the only available target.
I once went on a safari drive/walk with a Zimbo guide whose partner was killed by a Cape buffalo the year before
It turned out the buffalo bore a grudge. The guy who died had aimed a shot at the buffalo, for some reason, a year or two before THAT. The buffalo remembered, and as soon as he saw the man again, he charged
Not only are they hard to kill, they are cantankerous, resentful and they nurture a grievance for aeons. Bit like some of the older chaps on here
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
Split it up into modules:
News & traffic Weather Sport Childrens Light Entertainment & drama Natural History Radio Arts etc
And charge a monthly sub per module - a pick and mix.
No, that's never going to work. It needs to be a catch all service like Netflix. Local news/weather/sport/radio can be funded out of general taxation. Everything should be done commercially and not limited by the licence fee.
The BBC needs to be able to get to £10bn in revenue in 5 years time, that's a 2.5x per year increase from today. The licence fee or keeping its current structure with some modular basis won't work. If it can't do that it becomes a small inwardly facing producer of EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing.
I don't see why it shouldn't become a smaller, more focused entity. There is no divine right to have a state broadcaster. Its news would be worth perhaps £4.99/month of anyone's money.
The issue is that you're still thinking in the same outmoded way that the BBC is. A £4.99/m service would be competing with Sky News which is free and GB News which is also free. Are we really saying that people will pay up £4.99 on their Sky bill just to get BBC News? I find that extremely unlikely.
The channels are going the way of the dodo, the TV is primarily becoming the household's main streaming device after years of mobiles and tablets eating into its share. TVs getting bigger is a huge part of this and again, the modern TV watcher with a 55" or 65" one wants content that will wow them and they are willing to pay £12 per month to Netflix to get it. The reality where the BBC is still bound to produce news or sports coverage on a commercial basis doesn't exist, there's just no money in it without live sport.
The public service element can be stripped back to bare essentials and funded from general taxation, the commercial parts should be able to properly use commercial avenues to compete.
Hmm interesting. Sky and GBN both being free (but of course the former subsidised by Sky subscriptions). Is the reach of those really comparable? I'm not sure there is a Sky Cambridgeshire, for example. There would imo be plenty of people happy to pay a fiver a month for a trusted non-aligned news broadcaster. And how is Sky radio doing these days.
Sky News is free on Freeview and YouTube, I'm not sure about GBN as I've never watched it or tried to.
I think you're missing my point, there's no money in local news or local radio, it's a market that is completely propped up by the licence fee payer and is why the commercial aspects of BBC productions are utterly incapable of competing with the firepower that Netflix, Sony or Disney have got. They can't expand their revenue lines easily, they have got very high fixed costs for what is essentially perpetually loss making TV and radio production and they also have a public which wants to be wowed by production quality that we see in The Crown or The Witcher.
This totally misunderstands how BBC produces content NOW. Well over half of network hours are externally produced and under a quarter are BBC public service productions (the balance is "contestable" content which could be externally produced but where the work is won by BBC Studios as the commercial arm).
I absolutely understand that, it's why I'm suggesting the BBC be split. The externally produced shows are just another way of saying licence fee payer money gets sent to America or Japan right now. Why not allow the BBC to be commercially viable, raise billions of pounds in an IPO and bring production of shows in-house and then sell subscriptions globally to those great shows?
Sony offered The Crown to the BBC and ITV, Netflix completely blew them both out of the water. How does the BBC compete with that? At least ITV has a pretty huge production arm which is now relies on for reasonably good shows.
I want the BBC to be successful, I want it to be our globally facing, soft power generating company that is able to fund UK TV for the next 30 years and keep it UK owned. I can't see how it does that within the bounds of the licence fee.
"Mordaunt was born on 4 March 1973 in Torquay, Devon. The daughter of a former paratrooper, one of twins, she was named after the Arethusa-class cruiser HMS Penelope.[10] Her father, John Mordaunt, born at Hilsea Barracks, served in the Parachute Regiment before retraining as a teacher. Mordaunt has two brothers: James and a younger brother, Edward.[11]... Mordaunt was educated at Oaklands Roman Catholic Academy School [state, co-ed]
"When Mordaunt was 15 her mother died of breast cancer. Mordaunt's twin brother left school, so she became Edward's prime caregiver. The following year her father was diagnosed with cancer, from which he recovered. To pay her way through sixth-form college, Mordaunt became a magician's assistant to Portsmouth magician Will Ayling, who was once president of The Magic Circle.[15]"
Wiki
Mmm... Certainly tough compared with Johnson, Sunak, Rees-Mogg, and most of the other Tory patricians, but more like the experience of many from the summary above. Hard for any child to lose a parent so young. Not sure about the "paying her way through sixth-form college" - no fees at that time.
Be fantastic if someone neutralised Truss's "I'm a woman, remind you of anyone?" shtick.
I think Mordaunt's appeal is quite different, though. I think she could attract female voters Thatcher or Truss never could, possibly like Lisa Nandy.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
Split it up into modules:
News & traffic Weather Sport Childrens Light Entertainment & drama Natural History Radio Arts etc
And charge a monthly sub per module - a pick and mix.
No, that's never going to work. It needs to be a catch all service like Netflix. Local news/weather/sport/radio can be funded out of general taxation. Everything should be done commercially and not limited by the licence fee.
The BBC needs to be able to get to £10bn in revenue in 5 years time, that's a 2.5x per year increase from today. The licence fee or keeping its current structure with some modular basis won't work. If it can't do that it becomes a small inwardly facing producer of EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing.
I don't see why it shouldn't become a smaller, more focused entity. There is no divine right to have a state broadcaster. Its news would be worth perhaps £4.99/month of anyone's money.
The issue is that you're still thinking in the same outmoded way that the BBC is. A £4.99/m service would be competing with Sky News which is free and GB News which is also free. Are we really saying that people will pay up £4.99 on their Sky bill just to get BBC News? I find that extremely unlikely.
The channels are going the way of the dodo, the TV is primarily becoming the household's main streaming device after years of mobiles and tablets eating into its share. TVs getting bigger is a huge part of this and again, the modern TV watcher with a 55" or 65" one wants content that will wow them and they are willing to pay £12 per month to Netflix to get it. The reality where the BBC is still bound to produce news or sports coverage on a commercial basis doesn't exist, there's just no money in it without live sport.
The public service element can be stripped back to bare essentials and funded from general taxation, the commercial parts should be able to properly use commercial avenues to compete.
Not against this in theory, but some reservations:
* News at Six is still regularly in the 10 most-watched live broadcasts. It's a mistake to think that people no longer bother. By contrast, Sky, GBTV etc have small audiences. * How confident are we that the part covered by general taxation (presumably news, Panomara etc.) would not be stripped back if it was perceived as being critical? Even if the government was utterly scrupulous, might it not have a chilling effect? * Just personally, I think BBC programming is vastly superior to the overwhelming majority of stuff on Sky. I'm not sure why - perhaps they just cater for my old-fashioned taste. But I'd worry that commercialing would lead them into the same (IMO) pit of crapness.
Declasration of interest - I sub to Netflix at £5.99, and watch their stuff occasionally. Their range is generally downmarket too, though that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.
I am buggered if I can tell any qualitative difference between the BBC and Sky in terms of "crapness". They are equally crap, in general, but Sky has more choice and can sometimes be great
Tonight on BBC one: The One Show, Britain's Killer Roads, Eastenders, Kelvin's Big Farming Adventure, Who Do You Think You Are, News
So: mediocre magazine pap, ludicrous "documentary", really awful badly acted soap opera, mad shit trying to copy Jeremy Clarkson, tired formulaic personal history, news
ie Not a single thing here that I will ever ever watch, apart from maybe the News but only IF there is a major national/international news story, but even then I would watch it on the BBC 24 News Channel immediately, or Sky News, or Fox, or CNN, or Al Jazeera, or wherever, I won't "wait for News at Ten"
Sky no longer has a premium channel like BBC One, it is split into multiple channels you can stream, and I can find sad old repeats, more old repeats, some good repeats, but also Sky Comedy, Sky Nature, Sky History, Sky Arts, with a billion programmes of which I could certainly tolerate a couple of dozen
This is the thing. It is only old or incurious people who still "tune into BBC One" and settle down to watch it. Most people just don't do that anymore. I can't remember the last time I turned on the TV and "selected BBC One". It is not how I consume TV any more, and no one under 40 even understands the idea of channel selection
Agree generally. But Who do you Think you are? Is one of my guilty pleasures. At its best it is random social history. Often on topics no one would ever commission a programme about.
Erhhh its a big show on commercial tv in the US....and there is also another show Finding Your Roots.
Interesting and not surprising, but rather puzzled about the 1% at the extreme right.
Perhaps it’s Jordan Peterson or Brett Weinstein, saying it for effect.
Jordan Peterson would, I think, describe himself somewhere in the 4-6 (centrist) range. Possibly even soft left.
It's only those who don't like him who think he's far right, either because their perspectives are warped as to what that actually means, or because they assume that anyone who disagrees with them on social issues must automatically be far right, on everything.
"Mordaunt was born on 4 March 1973 in Torquay, Devon. The daughter of a former paratrooper, one of twins, she was named after the Arethusa-class cruiser HMS Penelope.[10] Her father, John Mordaunt, born at Hilsea Barracks, served in the Parachute Regiment before retraining as a teacher. Mordaunt has two brothers: James and a younger brother, Edward.[11]... Mordaunt was educated at Oaklands Roman Catholic Academy School [state, co-ed]
"When Mordaunt was 15 her mother died of breast cancer. Mordaunt's twin brother left school, so she became Edward's prime caregiver. The following year her father was diagnosed with cancer, from which he recovered. To pay her way through sixth-form college, Mordaunt became a magician's assistant to Portsmouth magician Will Ayling, who was once president of The Magic Circle.[15]"
She is, I think, pretty anti-Boris despite being pro-Brexit. I remember her face when the result of the leadership contest was announced when Boris won - she had a front row seat at the declaration. Looked like she'd swallowed a wasp. She was then summarily sacked as Defence Secretary, her dream job, despite having only being in post for a few weeks. Has been rehabilitated a bit since, by being made Paymaster General. If Rishi blows up she is certainly a very interesting alternative - much more presentable than Liz Truss. One to watch.
Yes, she lost a bet with the other Officers at the Reservist camp. Good to see an MP with something of a sense of humour, and we agree something more of a back story than most ministers.
I’m not sure she’s for the top job this time around, and I think the same about Truss, but both ladies are definitely potential future leaders.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
The thing is the BBC have already basically set this structure up with BBC Studios and UKTV....its just they don't like to shout about it, in case somebody might suggest your approach...
Most people I talk to have no idea that UKTV is 100% owned by the BBC, many don't even have a clue the BBC have any ownership of the likes of Dave.
And then you have the opposite, some things branded BBC aren't BBC at all. BBC Good Food isn't the BBC.
I knew the BBC had a stake in UKTV but didn’t realise it was wholly one owned by the BBC. It explains why they premiere some new stuff on the channel.
The BBC have a long history of this sort of thing e.g. they bought the Lonely Planet publisher.
That's all fine, but it makes a mockery of well we couldn't possibly run any ads or be involved in commercial activities, it would compromise our integrity.
BBC Good Food is another prime example
When the BBC was thinking of axing it everyone said OH no, how can they do that, these evil Tories where will they stop.......
Until it was pointed out that BBC Good Food was handed out "free" (actually not free, of course, but funded by almost every taxpayer in the land whether we like it or not) AND meanwhile, because it was "free" BBC Good Food was driving paid-for cooking magazines out of business, so seriously damaging the ecosystem and destroying journalistic jobs
It is bollocks like this that needs to be sorted FIRST
Yes that's a good example where the BBC eat others lunch....so they have in the past hollowed out any competition by getting into sectors they really shouldn't be in.
The problem now of course that model is changing itself. YouTube allows people to do global cooking and it very popular. So the BBC have in the past put a load of other people out of business, now they are continuing to ask for money to fund this vast empire for "public good", when I can go on YouTube and find everybody from Gordon Ramsey to a bloke from Weston Super Mare showing me how to cook recipes. There is no need for BBC to be doing free recipes.
BBC Good Food magazine/website is owned by Immediate Media and has a licence to use the BBC brand from BBC Worldwide.
That might represent a blurred line about the use of the brand.. but it isn't (nor I think has it ever been) subsidised from the licence fee.
No, you are confusing two things. BBC Good Food and BBC Food....
I mentioned this exact fact down thread....people think BBC Good Food is the BBC, it isn't. At one point it was a BBC worldwide owned operations, but they sold it....
So they eat other lunch, then spun off the BBC Good Food brand. But they also eat try to eat others lunch with the BBC website food.
The problem is that both are getting eaten by the likes of YouTube.
And it's all given away "free"
Now imagine you are a writer/editor on a struggling cookery magazine, and then you look at that. You would weep. Your job is not going to last very long
Irrespective of our views, I suspect that sooner or later (later in Scotland and Wales) masks will no longer be compulsory. However, some people will continue to wear them in some places, as many people in South East Asia already did before covid, for different reasons. I trust that the wearing, or not wearing, of masks will be accepted by those with a different view.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
The thing is the BBC have already basically set this structure up with BBC Studios and UKTV....its just they don't like to shout about it, in case somebody might suggest your approach...
Most people I talk to have no idea that UKTV is 100% owned by the BBC, many don't even have a clue the BBC have any ownership of the likes of Dave.
And then you have the opposite, some things branded BBC aren't BBC at all. BBC Good Food isn't the BBC.
I knew the BBC had a stake in UKTV but didn’t realise it was wholly one owned by the BBC. It explains why they premiere some new stuff on the channel.
The BBC have a long history of this sort of thing e.g. they bought the Lonely Planet publisher.
That's all fine, but it makes a mockery of well we couldn't possibly run any ads or be involved in commercial activities, it would compromise our integrity.
BBC Good Food is another prime example
When the BBC was thinking of axing it everyone said OH no, how can they do that, these evil Tories where will they stop.......
Until it was pointed out that BBC Good Food was handed out "free" (actually not free, of course, but funded by almost every taxpayer in the land whether we like it or not) AND meanwhile, because it was "free" BBC Good Food was driving paid-for cooking magazines out of business, so seriously damaging the ecosystem and destroying journalistic jobs
It is bollocks like this that needs to be sorted FIRST
Yes that's a good example where the BBC eat others lunch....so they have in the past hollowed out any competition by getting into sectors they really shouldn't be in.
The problem now of course that model is changing itself. YouTube allows people to do global cooking and it very popular. So the BBC have in the past put a load of other people out of business, now they are continuing to ask for money to fund this vast empire for "public good", when I can go on YouTube and find everybody from Gordon Ramsey to a bloke from Weston Super Mare showing me how to cook recipes. There is no need for BBC to be doing free recipes.
BBC Good Food magazine/website is owned by Immediate Media and has a licence to use the BBC brand from BBC Worldwide.
That might represent a blurred line about the use of the brand.. but it isn't (nor I think has it ever been) subsidised from the licence fee.
But you can - or you could - just go on the BBC website and download any BBC Good Food recipe. That's the point
So cooking magazines were fucked. Of course you could argue they were fucked anyway by free content on the internet, but the BBC happily accelerated that process
No, the BBC website and its recipes are totally different to BBCgoodfood.
The BBC site has recipes from its shows.
BBC Good Food has recipes from the magazine and is a tie in to the magazine.
People offer content on the internet for free "The BBC are fucked, the useless dinosaurs can't compete"
The BBC offer content on the internet for free "The vicious bastards are fucking other people over"
Both are most definitely true at the same time in this case. They get £3bn guaranteed to push other people out of the market, but Winnie the Pooh has now come along at the top end to squash them on the high end drama and they can't compete on sports rights, and the low end YouTube / twitch....but they can still squash the middle ground and certain sectors that require investment to get up and running.
No, that's never going to work. It needs to be a catch all service like Netflix. Local news/weather/sport/radio can be funded out of general taxation. Everything should be done commercially and not limited by the licence fee.
The BBC needs to be able to get to £10bn in revenue in 5 years time, that's a 2.5x per year increase from today. The licence fee or keeping its current structure with some modular basis won't work. If it can't do that it becomes a small inwardly facing producer of EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing.
I must confess I'm fairly agnostic about all of this.
I do detect a hint of political "revenge" from many on the Right (the BBC has never been "one of us") but to be fair the Left also feels habitually wronged by the Beeb and part of me thinks if you are annoying both sides you're doing a good job.
I presume the problem is the enforced annual subscription known as the licence fee. Unfortunately, that looks a relic of a bygone age. Television is as much a commodity as anything else. You can have as much or as little tv as you want or are willing to pay for.
Perhaps we should treat television like the Health Service - basically free at point of viewing but with a few extra channels available (call it BUPA-vision) for those who want to pay. As long as we have a basic entitlement of entertainment, education and information available to all free of charge, those who want the frills or thills of Netflix or Racing TV and the like can pay.
That's essentially my suggestion. I think the BBC could be something really special, it's so well placed to be a huge exporter of UK TV, soft power and culture. Yet it isn't. No one is taking a serious look at why that has changed in the last 25 years.
Interesting and not surprising, but rather puzzled about the 1% at the extreme right.
Perhaps it’s Jordan Peterson or Brett Weinstein, saying it for effect.
Jordan Peterson would, I think, describe himself somewhere in the 4-6 (centrist) range. Possibly even soft left.
It's only those who don't like him who think he's far right, either because their perspectives are warped as to what that actually means, or because they assume that anyone who disagrees with them on social issues must automatically be far right, on everything.
Of course. There’s a huge group of academics, comedians and people in the arts, who are genuinely in the 4-6 range but spend their days being called far-right, by the far-left majority in their fields, for saying controversial things like “women give birth”.
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
Split it up into modules:
News & traffic Weather Sport Childrens Light Entertainment & drama Natural History Radio Arts etc
And charge a monthly sub per module - a pick and mix.
No, that's never going to work. It needs to be a catch all service like Netflix. Local news/weather/sport/radio can be funded out of general taxation. Everything should be done commercially and not limited by the licence fee.
The BBC needs to be able to get to £10bn in revenue in 5 years time, that's a 2.5x per year increase from today. The licence fee or keeping its current structure with some modular basis won't work. If it can't do that it becomes a small inwardly facing producer of EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing.
But the purpose of the BBC, most fundamentally, is also to meet the needs of the British pubic, rather than to become the largest possible global corporation. It can also continue to do that, and raise revenue from some new sources, without becoming as large as netflix.
Why can't it do both? The largest buyer of UK made TV is currently Netflix (American), the largest seller of UK made TV is currently Sony (Japanese). That's pretty shameful.
I agree. But the BBC still needs to most fundamentally remain a British public service, somehow. Otherwise there's no justification for government help.
Keeping UK production studios in UK ownership is a pretty big public service, it's going to be a £20bn industry that is entirely foreign owned in the next 5 years. I think people need to start separating the public service aspect of what the BBC does from the commercial "ratings" aspect. The licence fee is never going to be enough for the BBC to do both, not in the long term. The fixed costs of the public service part of what they do is rising and eating up the licence fee income and basically can't be cut but the "ratings" bit is rising even faster and can be cut. So what we end up with is the BBC eventually going the way I'm saying anyway, with a husk of an organisation which does a few glitzy shows but is basically just churning out local news, radio and sports coverage that a lot of people don't care about anyway.
It's a nettle that should have been grasped up to a decade ago. But the Tories have been more interested in degrading the organisation than developing it. (And, to be fair, the opposition haven't offered much in the way of constructive thought beyond 'save the BBC.)
Another few years and it will be too late.
If it involves a UK govt putting significant money in to create a return you can forget it. Past govts of all types have been masters of myopic, penny-pinching shortsightedness. Examples that spring to mind:
- Whittle and the jet engine - The Black Arrow satellite launch system - John Harrison and the ships' chronometer - Parsons and the Turbinia steam turbine - The ARM chip and some of the early IT stuff
Of course the latest example is saving £350m a week that has since resulted in the UK running up extra costs of £500m(ish) per week...
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
The thing is the BBC have already basically set this structure up with BBC Studios and UKTV....its just they don't like to shout about it, in case somebody might suggest your approach...
Most people I talk to have no idea that UKTV is 100% owned by the BBC, many don't even have a clue the BBC have any ownership of the likes of Dave.
And then you have the opposite, some things branded BBC aren't BBC at all. BBC Good Food isn't the BBC.
I knew the BBC had a stake in UKTV but didn’t realise it was wholly one owned by the BBC. It explains why they premiere some new stuff on the channel.
The BBC have a long history of this sort of thing e.g. they bought the Lonely Planet publisher.
That's all fine, but it makes a mockery of well we couldn't possibly run any ads or be involved in commercial activities, it would compromise our integrity.
BBC Good Food is another prime example
When the BBC was thinking of axing it everyone said OH no, how can they do that, these evil Tories where will they stop.......
Until it was pointed out that BBC Good Food was handed out "free" (actually not free, of course, but funded by almost every taxpayer in the land whether we like it or not) AND meanwhile, because it was "free" BBC Good Food was driving paid-for cooking magazines out of business, so seriously damaging the ecosystem and destroying journalistic jobs
It is bollocks like this that needs to be sorted FIRST
Yes that's a good example where the BBC eat others lunch....so they have in the past hollowed out any competition by getting into sectors they really shouldn't be in.
The problem now of course that model is changing itself. YouTube allows people to do global cooking and it very popular. So the BBC have in the past put a load of other people out of business, now they are continuing to ask for money to fund this vast empire for "public good", when I can go on YouTube and find everybody from Gordon Ramsey to a bloke from Weston Super Mare showing me how to cook recipes. There is no need for BBC to be doing free recipes.
BBC Good Food magazine/website is owned by Immediate Media and has a licence to use the BBC brand from BBC Worldwide.
That might represent a blurred line about the use of the brand.. but it isn't (nor I think has it ever been) subsidised from the licence fee.
But you can - or you could - just go on the BBC website and download any BBC Good Food recipe. That's the point
So cooking magazines were fucked. Of course you could argue they were fucked anyway by free content on the internet, but the BBC happily accelerated that process
No, the BBC website and its recipes are totally different to BBCgoodfood.
The BBC site has recipes from its shows.
BBC Good Food has recipes from the magazine and is a tie in to the magazine.
Yes, I apologise for my ridiculous, infantile confusion between BBC Good food, a food website and magazine, which was free, giving away recipes on the BBC website, but commercially owned, and with a subbed magazine, and BBC Food, a food website which is free, giving away recipes on the BBC website, and blah blah
The BBC just needs to go commercial in these areas and have done with it
Re the earlier posted article from Politics home, that really surprises me. I didn't know Mordaunt was already the third most popular choice with Tory members after Truss and Sunak.
That could also make her a significant example of a grassroots favourite who doesn't come across as loopy to the general public, making her even better placed.
Interesting and not surprising, but rather puzzled about the 1% at the extreme right.
Perhaps it’s Jordan Peterson or Brett Weinstein, saying it for effect.
Jordan Peterson would, I think, describe himself somewhere in the 4-6 (centrist) range. Possibly even soft left.
It's only those who don't like him who think he's far right, either because their perspectives are warped as to what that actually means, or because they assume that anyone who disagrees with them on social issues must automatically be far right, on everything.
Of course. There’s a huge group of academics, comedians and people in the arts, who are genuinely in the 4-6 range but spend their days being called far-right, by the far-left majority in their fields.
The thing with Peterson is, he isn't far right, I find him quite is a strange individual, but because he says things that are different from the mainstream, he has built a bit of a cult following, of which a proportion are the right wing and weird incels etc. Therefore people like him get labelled as far right or far right adjacent.
We are seeing it now with Joe Rogan. He must be far right because...insert weird view he has which right wing people have in the US e.g. vaccines.
People offer content on the internet for free "The BBC are fucked, the useless dinosaurs can't compete"
The BBC offer content on the internet for free "The vicious bastards are fucking other people over"
The problem for the BBC is that both are true at the same time. It uses the licence fee to ruthlessly destroy viable commercial businesses by copying them, but then it gets its own business destroyed by YouTubers and Instgrammers because they think people want faster horses rather than cars.
"Mordaunt was born on 4 March 1973 in Torquay, Devon. The daughter of a former paratrooper, one of twins, she was named after the Arethusa-class cruiser HMS Penelope.[10] Her father, John Mordaunt, born at Hilsea Barracks, served in the Parachute Regiment before retraining as a teacher. Mordaunt has two brothers: James and a younger brother, Edward.[11]... Mordaunt was educated at Oaklands Roman Catholic Academy School [state, co-ed]
"When Mordaunt was 15 her mother died of breast cancer. Mordaunt's twin brother left school, so she became Edward's prime caregiver. The following year her father was diagnosed with cancer, from which he recovered. To pay her way through sixth-form college, Mordaunt became a magician's assistant to Portsmouth magician Will Ayling, who was once president of The Magic Circle.[15]"
Wiki
Mmm... Certainly tough compared with Johnson, Sunak, Rees-Mogg, and most of the other Tory patricians, but more like the experience of many from the summary above. Hard for any child to lose a parent so young. Not sure about the "paying her way through sixth-form college" - no fees at that time.
Be fantastic if someone neutralised Truss's "I'm a woman, remind you of anyone?" shtick.
I think Mordaunt's appeal is quite different, though. I think she could attract female voters Thatcher or Truss never could, possibly like Lisa Nandy.
"Mordaunt was born on 4 March 1973 in Torquay, Devon. The daughter of a former paratrooper, one of twins, she was named after the Arethusa-class cruiser HMS Penelope.[10] Her father, John Mordaunt, born at Hilsea Barracks, served in the Parachute Regiment before retraining as a teacher. Mordaunt has two brothers: James and a younger brother, Edward.[11]... Mordaunt was educated at Oaklands Roman Catholic Academy School [state, co-ed]
"When Mordaunt was 15 her mother died of breast cancer. Mordaunt's twin brother left school, so she became Edward's prime caregiver. The following year her father was diagnosed with cancer, from which he recovered. To pay her way through sixth-form college, Mordaunt became a magician's assistant to Portsmouth magician Will Ayling, who was once president of The Magic Circle.[15]"
Wiki
Mmm... Certainly tough compared with Johnson, Sunak, Rees-Mogg, and most of the other Tory patricians, but more like the experience of many from the summary above. Hard for any child to lose a parent so young. Not sure about the "paying her way through sixth-form college" - no fees at that time.
Be fantastic if someone neutralised Truss's "I'm a woman, remind you of anyone?" shtick.
I think Mordaunt's appeal is quite different, though. I think she could attract female voters Thatcher or Truss never could, possibly like Lisa Nandy.
Labour really are knackered if Nandy is voting for Mordaunt.
OT Amazon seems to have suspended its planned cancellation of Visa credit cards.
I only learnt of this possibility on here. If Amazon had been serious, they'd have been informing customers (they weren't) and telling them they needed another way to pay. Given many are wedded to their bank and credit cards, it simply would've meant losing nearly half their customer base.
If I was VISA, I'd have simply called their bluff.....
I got constant warning e-mails from Amazon
I did too and ignored them. If they had gone though with it it would have been an excellent way of going cold turkey on Amazon products and would probably have saved me a significant chunk of cash. It would be interesting to find out how many were like me and hadn’t bothered to switch yet.
On the tennis betting, so as expected Djoko bets were voided by betfair exchange and a new market formed without him. Therefore I also expected the equivalent of a Rule 4 deduction on bets matched on other players prior to the withdrawal. A chunky one too since the 'horse' pulled out was a short price. But it's not the case. No adjustment was made. Great for me as a backer - of Zverev and Sinner if you're interested - but I'd feel rather pissed off if I had lay bets.
I don't think a new market has been formed. Just the old market with Djokovic removed and bets refunded as per their rules.
Per the rules, yes, and quite a loophole as I see it. If Djok had started the other prices wouldn't have moved much because they were quoted on the basis he would start. It was a complete market, all runners quoted 'with a run'. So, you could have gone in and backed all the contenders where there was decent liquidity, lose little or nothing if Djok won his 2nd appeal, but if he lost it - which was close to a certainty - end up with a raft of juicy longs that could be closed or traded to taste. I failed to deduce this upfront. I've benefited because of the 2 bets I had made but I do feel I've missed a trick.
The prices were formed on the basis that the contenders may or may not start, with provision in the rules that if they didn't then those bets would be voided. This is why Djokovic's price was in my view a tad too high, because his start was in doubt and some punters hadn't read the rules and didn't realise that the bets would be voided if a no show.
This meant that the value was in backing Djokovic at a good price in the knowledge you would get your money back if he didn't start. Which is what I did.
I don't think so myself. If he'd won that appeal his price would hardly have budged. It rose because his chances - with a start - were deteriorating with that awful (for him) prep. But that's a different point. My point is they've done an odd mix here of an antepost and 'day of race' market. With an antepost market bets on pullouts are not voided. Where they are voided that's 'day of race' convention and the quid pro quo is you get a big adjustment to matched bets prior to the pullout (odds revised downwards) if the pullout is a short price. Here we have the quid but not the quo, as it were, and backers have benefited at the expense of layers.
Wait til Leon finds out that there's a free daily newspaper that's given out on buses and trains.
Wait till Farooq finds out there's a thing called "advertising" that the BBC aren't allowed to do.
So? We still pay for it. Every time I shop for something advertised in the Metro, I'm paying for it. Formally, the argument here is identical to Leon's. I don't see the problem with either.
Re the earlier posted article from Politics home, that really surprises me. I didn't know Mordaunt was already the third most popular choice with Tory members after Truss and Sunak.
That could also make her a significant example of a grassroots favourite who doesn't come across as loopy to the general public, making her even better placed.
Mordaunt has also been Defence Secretary, so is not exactly coming from nowhere with no Cabinet experience.
She was a Leaver in 2016 but backed Hunt in 2019, so arguably ideally positioned for post Boris Tory leadership. She also has strong GOP links having worked as Head of Foreign Press for the George W Bush campaign in 2000 and again for the Bush campaign in 2004
Re the earlier posted article from Politics home, that really surprises me. I didn't know Mordaunt was already the third most popular choice with Tory members after Truss and Sunak.
That could also make her a significant example of a grassroots favourite who doesn't come across as loopy to the general public, making her even better placed.
Mordaunt has also been Defence Secretary, so is not exactly coming from nowhere with no Cabinet experience.
She was a Leaver in 2016 but backed Hunt in 2019, so arguably ideally positioned for post Boris Tory leadership. She also has strong GOP links having worked as Head of Foreign Press for the George W Bush campaign in 2000 and again for the Bush campaign in 2004
Agreed with all except the last sentence, unless it's very clearly not the Trump crowd. Because of that I don't think strong GOP links are an asset in Britain at the moment.
Bush is ofcourse not a friend of Trump. Backing Hunt over Boris again doesn't seem too crazy.
Re the earlier posted article from Politics home, that really surprises me. I didn't know Mordaunt was already the third most popular choice with Tory members after Truss and Sunak.
That could also make her a significant example of a grassroots favourite who doesn't come across as loopy to the general public, making her even better placed.
Mordaunt has also been Defence Secretary, so is not exactly coming from nowhere with no Cabinet experience.
She was a Leaver in 2016 but backed Hunt in 2019, so arguably ideally positioned for post Boris Tory leadership. She also has strong GOP links having worked as Head of Foreign Press for the George W Bush campaign in 2000 and again for the Bush campaign in 2004
Agreed with all except the last sentence, unless it's very clearly not the Trump crowd. Because of that I don't think strong GOP links are an asset in Britain at the moment.
If the GOP retake Congress in November they would be helpful, in any case Bush has never been that close to Trump given Trump humiliated his brother Jeb in the 2016 GOP primaries and attended Biden's inaugration unlike Trump too
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
Split it up into modules:
News & traffic Weather Sport Childrens Light Entertainment & drama Natural History Radio Arts etc
And charge a monthly sub per module - a pick and mix.
No, that's never going to work. It needs to be a catch all service like Netflix. Local news/weather/sport/radio can be funded out of general taxation. Everything should be done commercially and not limited by the licence fee.
The BBC needs to be able to get to £10bn in revenue in 5 years time, that's a 2.5x per year increase from today. The licence fee or keeping its current structure with some modular basis won't work. If it can't do that it becomes a small inwardly facing producer of EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing.
But the purpose of the BBC, most fundamentally, is also to meet the needs of the British pubic, rather than to become the largest possible global corporation. It can also continue to do that, and raise revenue from some new sources, without becoming as large as netflix.
Why can't it do both? The largest buyer of UK made TV is currently Netflix (American), the largest seller of UK made TV is currently Sony (Japanese). That's pretty shameful.
I agree. But the BBC still needs to most fundamentally remain a British public service, somehow. Otherwise there's no justification for government help.
Keeping UK production studios in UK ownership is a pretty big public service, it's going to be a £20bn industry that is entirely foreign owned in the next 5 years. I think people need to start separating the public service aspect of what the BBC does from the commercial "ratings" aspect. The licence fee is never going to be enough for the BBC to do both, not in the long term. The fixed costs of the public service part of what they do is rising and eating up the licence fee income and basically can't be cut but the "ratings" bit is rising even faster and can be cut. So what we end up with is the BBC eventually going the way I'm saying anyway, with a husk of an organisation which does a few glitzy shows but is basically just churning out local news, radio and sports coverage that a lot of people don't care about anyway.
It's a nettle that should have been grasped up to a decade ago. But the Tories have been more interested in degrading the organisation than developing it. (And, to be fair, the opposition haven't offered much in the way of constructive thought beyond 'save the BBC.)
Another few years and it will be too late.
If it involves a UK govt putting significant money in to create a return you can forget it. Past govts of all types have been masters of myopic, penny-pinching shortsightedness. Examples that spring to mind:
- Whittle and the jet engine - The Black Arrow satellite launch system - John Harrison and the ships' chronometer - Parsons and the Turbinia steam turbine - The ARM chip and some of the early IT stuff
Of course the latest example is saving £350m a week that has since resulted in the UK running up extra costs of £500m(ish) per week...
Black Arrow was an example of walking down the wrong path - it led to a launch system that could only launch very small satellites at a time when the requirement for larger launchers was clear. And it wasn't very scalable - a bigger launch vehicle would have required new engines.
Parson was encouraged and sponsored by the Royal Navy's chief engineer. The famous dash past the Navy was almost certainly pre-arranged. The RN started buying turbine propelled ships the moment that it was shown that Parsons had been able to achieve vaguely useful efficiencies - between turbine design and propellor speed, up to then you build a turbine powered ship, but it would burn coal at an insane rate.
Re the earlier posted article from Politics home, that really surprises me. I didn't know Mordaunt was already the third most popular choice with Tory members after Truss and Sunak.
That could also make her a significant example of a grassroots favourite who doesn't come across as loopy to the general public, making her even better placed.
Mordaunt has also been Defence Secretary, so is not exactly coming from nowhere with no Cabinet experience.
She was a Leaver in 2016 but backed Hunt in 2019, so arguably ideally positioned for post Boris Tory leadership. She also has strong GOP links having worked as Head of Foreign Press for the George W Bush campaign in 2000 and again for the Bush campaign in 2004
Agreed with all except the last sentence, unless it's very clearly not the Trump crowd. Because of that I don't think strong GOP links are an asset in Britain at the moment.
Trump’s major achievement in politics was to make George W Bush look like an elder statesman.
Re the earlier posted article from Politics home, that really surprises me. I didn't know Mordaunt was already the third most popular choice with Tory members after Truss and Sunak.
That could also make her a significant example of a grassroots favourite who doesn't come across as loopy to the general public, making her even better placed.
Mordaunt has also been Defence Secretary, so is not exactly coming from nowhere with no Cabinet experience.
She was a Leaver in 2016 but backed Hunt in 2019, so arguably ideally positioned for post Boris Tory leadership. She also has strong GOP links having worked as Head of Foreign Press for the George W Bush campaign in 2000 and again for the Bush campaign in 2004
Agreed with all except the last sentence, unless it's very clearly not the Trump crowd. Because of that I don't think strong GOP links are an asset in Britain at the moment.
If the GOP retake Congress in November they would be helpful, in any case Bush has never been that close to Trump given Trump humiliated his brother Jeb in the 2016 GOP primaries and attended Biden's inaugration unlike Trump too
Trump humiliated just about everyone who stood for election in 2016, himself included (and especially)
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
Split it up into modules:
News & traffic Weather Sport Childrens Light Entertainment & drama Natural History Radio Arts etc
And charge a monthly sub per module - a pick and mix.
No, that's never going to work. It needs to be a catch all service like Netflix. Local news/weather/sport/radio can be funded out of general taxation. Everything should be done commercially and not limited by the licence fee.
The BBC needs to be able to get to £10bn in revenue in 5 years time, that's a 2.5x per year increase from today. The licence fee or keeping its current structure with some modular basis won't work. If it can't do that it becomes a small inwardly facing producer of EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing.
But the purpose of the BBC, most fundamentally, is also to meet the needs of the British pubic, rather than to become the largest possible global corporation. It can also continue to do that, and raise revenue from some new sources, without becoming as large as netflix.
Why can't it do both? The largest buyer of UK made TV is currently Netflix (American), the largest seller of UK made TV is currently Sony (Japanese). That's pretty shameful.
I agree. But the BBC still needs to most fundamentally remain a British public service, somehow. Otherwise there's no justification for government help.
Keeping UK production studios in UK ownership is a pretty big public service, it's going to be a £20bn industry that is entirely foreign owned in the next 5 years. I think people need to start separating the public service aspect of what the BBC does from the commercial "ratings" aspect. The licence fee is never going to be enough for the BBC to do both, not in the long term. The fixed costs of the public service part of what they do is rising and eating up the licence fee income and basically can't be cut but the "ratings" bit is rising even faster and can be cut. So what we end up with is the BBC eventually going the way I'm saying anyway, with a husk of an organisation which does a few glitzy shows but is basically just churning out local news, radio and sports coverage that a lot of people don't care about anyway.
It's a nettle that should have been grasped up to a decade ago. But the Tories have been more interested in degrading the organisation than developing it. (And, to be fair, the opposition haven't offered much in the way of constructive thought beyond 'save the BBC.)
Another few years and it will be too late.
If it involves a UK govt putting significant money in to create a return you can forget it. Past govts of all types have been masters of myopic, penny-pinching shortsightedness. Examples that spring to mind:
- Whittle and the jet engine - The Black Arrow satellite launch system - John Harrison and the ships' chronometer - Parsons and the Turbinia steam turbine - The ARM chip and some of the early IT stuff
Of course the latest example is saving £350m a week that has since resulted in the UK running up extra costs of £500m(ish) per week...
There are some interesting choices there. The last one is, IMV, utterly wrong.
Forty years ago last week, the BBC started a computer literacy campaign. To do this, they wanted a computer that could do the stuff they wanted, and eventually went with Acorn. The Thatcher government then started the 'micros in every school' project, which helped get at least one computer in every primary and secondary school in the country - and which taught a generation basic (or more) computer skills. I still remember when my primary school got their first Acorn, and the world it opened up to me.
That seems farcical nowadays, when we often have several computers on our person, but at the time it was a massively important step.
And Acorn went on to use that money to develop a little chip you might have heard of. Acorn failed for an odd reason: the value of ARM shares it held were far greater than its own value, so it got bought out and split up. But Acorn's main problem before that was a rather poor senior management imposed after the Olivetti buy-out.
Wonder what's left that can be handed out for free, now that bicycles, baby-boxes, tuition fees, prescriptions, etc, are all available at no cost (at least, to the recipients). Hypodermics, perhaps?
I don't remember any criticism about BJ's (illusory) largesse for levelling up. I daresay like your fellow SConners you've erased the whole ghastly episode from your memory
Oxfam is calling for a 99% tax on billionaires to help fund a COVID vaccination expansion effort in the world's poorest countries where rates can be as low as 7%.
Missed that bit. Bonkety-bonk.
Have Oxfam identified how they are going to make up for all the jobs that will destroy, and the wealth it will devastate?
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Incidentally, I fear the failure to make good decisions might prove fatal for the BBC, if the licence fee ends and their attempted alternative is a catastrophe.
That's why talk of the licence fee ending (from the Government) is stupid until they and/or the BBC have conceived of a well-considered alternative.
However, given the political class' answer to Scottish nationalism has seen the union come within a whisker of being destroyed at the ballot box I am not confident such a thing will happen.
When it has previously been raised with the BBC they have never been willing to consider any alternative though. Other means of extra funding but the license fee had to stay.
An Audiovisual Tax is probably the best approach because it can be graduated according to income and is already used elsewhere. Yes, it means another tax but, given the licence fee is regressive, there is a good argument for it.
Split off BBC Public Service and BBC Commercial Limited. The former can be funded out of general taxation and covers radio, local news and sports coverage that isn't football, cricket or rugby. BBC Commercial becomes a the primary owner of all BBC content ever produced and all of the current relationships and is floated on the LSE with the state holding a parliamentary bound golden share (as in, it would need an act of parliament to sell it) to prevent a foreign takeover. BBC Commercial Limited becomes a subscription and advertising funded company, it also gives up BBC1 to the public service channel which doesn't have adverts and can show select BBC Commercial shows for a period of 10 years for a fixed fee (shit like EastEnders that no one would pay to watch but is still fairly popular). BBC Commercial Limited keeps all of the funds from the IPO and uses it to buyout scads of UK production companies it's already partnered with and from then on it reserves global rights to all of its shows to put on a globally facing streaming service, all existing rights that have been sold piecemeal are allowed to expire so 4-6 years from now iPlayer is able to have a standard offering of all BBC content like Disney+ across the whole world.
That's how I would restructure the BBC. One commercial channel, pushing everyone to streaming as much as possible and eventually even getting rid of the one broadcast channel.
The thing is the BBC have already basically set this structure up with BBC Studios and UKTV....its just they don't like to shout about it, in case somebody might suggest your approach...
Most people I talk to have no idea that UKTV is 100% owned by the BBC, many don't even have a clue the BBC have any ownership of the likes of Dave.
And then you have the opposite, some things branded BBC aren't BBC at all. BBC Good Food isn't the BBC.
I knew the BBC had a stake in UKTV but didn’t realise it was wholly one owned by the BBC. It explains why they premiere some new stuff on the channel.
The BBC have a long history of this sort of thing e.g. they bought the Lonely Planet publisher.
That's all fine, but it makes a mockery of well we couldn't possibly run any ads or be involved in commercial activities, it would compromise our integrity.
BBC Good Food is another prime example
When the BBC was thinking of axing it everyone said OH no, how can they do that, these evil Tories where will they stop.......
Until it was pointed out that BBC Good Food was handed out "free" (actually not free, of course, but funded by almost every taxpayer in the land whether we like it or not) AND meanwhile, because it was "free" BBC Good Food was driving paid-for cooking magazines out of business, so seriously damaging the ecosystem and destroying journalistic jobs
It is bollocks like this that needs to be sorted FIRST
Yes that's a good example where the BBC eat others lunch....so they have in the past hollowed out any competition by getting into sectors they really shouldn't be in.
The problem now of course that model is changing itself. YouTube allows people to do global cooking and it very popular. So the BBC have in the past put a load of other people out of business, now they are continuing to ask for money to fund this vast empire for "public good", when I can go on YouTube and find everybody from Gordon Ramsey to a bloke from Weston Super Mare showing me how to cook recipes. There is no need for BBC to be doing free recipes.
BBC Good Food magazine/website is owned by Immediate Media and has a licence to use the BBC brand from BBC Worldwide.
That might represent a blurred line about the use of the brand.. but it isn't (nor I think has it ever been) subsidised from the licence fee.
But you can - or you could - just go on the BBC website and download any BBC Good Food recipe. That's the point
So cooking magazines were fucked. Of course you could argue they were fucked anyway by free content on the internet, but the BBC happily accelerated that process
No, the BBC website and its recipes are totally different to BBCgoodfood.
The BBC site has recipes from its shows.
BBC Good Food has recipes from the magazine and is a tie in to the magazine.
Yes, I apologise for my ridiculous, infantile confusion between BBC Good food, a food website and magazine, which was free, giving away recipes on the BBC website, but commercially owned, and with a subbed magazine, and BBC Food, a food website which is free, giving away recipes on the BBC website, and blah blah
The BBC just needs to go commercial in these areas and have done with it
Had a good recipe for Octopus from one of those last night.
But I need a meat hammer, in the absence of Cretan Cliffs to bash it on 50 times in my garden.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Churchill says Hello.
Churchill only became PM to win the War, Tory MPs did not trust him otherwise.
He was also not a great party leader, losing 2 out of 3 general elections and losing the popular vote in the other.
Without Hitler, Churchill would never have got near becoming Tory leader, great war leader though he was
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Churchill says Hello.
Churchill only became PM to win the War, Tory MPs did not trust him otherwise.
He was also not a great party leader, losing 2 out of 3 general elections and losing the popular vote in the other.
Without Hitler, Churchill would never have got near becoming Tory leader, great war leader though he was
Gray report says rotten culture but not damning on PM knowledge; Big mea culpa + clearout of inner circle; More letters go in but 54 not hit; Major move to address April cost of living crunch; better than expected May locals. (Theoretically) https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1483098095634329600
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Wouldn't that have rather precluded Churchill from being a Tory MP, let alone PM?
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Wouldn't that have rather precluded Churchill from being a Tory MP, let alone PM?
He did have some trouble finding a Tory seat to select him again initially having been a Liberal before we selected him here in Epping.
However I did say generally, there are a few exceptions like Churchill but Gary Neville is no Churchill
Oxfam is calling for a 99% tax on billionaires to help fund a COVID vaccination expansion effort in the world's poorest countries where rates can be as low as 7%.
Missed that bit. Bonkety-bonk.
Have Oxfam identified how they are going to make up for all the jobs that will destroy, and the wealth it will devastate?
But if they actually tackled the problem that have lead to vaccines pilling up in Africa (for example) to the point where deliveries are being slowed down... Well, they would have to ask some questions and embarrass the wrong people.
Comments
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1483076164231041029?s=20
I'd differ from him in that I'd retain a bit more of programming/commissioning within the public service rump. With a brief to develop only new UK talent/productions.
Sony offered The Crown to the BBC and ITV, Netflix completely blew them both out of the water. How does the BBC compete with that? At least ITV has a pretty huge production arm which is now relies on for reasonably good shows.
I want the BBC to be successful, I want it to be our globally facing, soft power generating company that is able to fund UK TV for the next 30 years and keep it UK owned. I can't see how it does that within the bounds of the licence fee.
"The BBC are fucked, the useless dinosaurs can't compete"
The BBC offer content on the internet for free
"The vicious bastards are fucking other people over"
It's only those who don't like him who think he's far right, either because their perspectives are warped as to what that actually means, or because they assume that anyone who disagrees with them on social issues must automatically be far right, on everything.
I’m not sure she’s for the top job this time around, and I think the same about Truss, but both ladies are definitely potential future leaders.
Now imagine you are a writer/editor on a struggling cookery magazine, and then you look at that. You would weep. Your job is not going to last very long
The BBC site has recipes from its shows.
BBC Good Food has recipes from the magazine and is a tie in to the magazine.
So this is a load of shite
- Whittle and the jet engine
- The Black Arrow satellite launch system
- John Harrison and the ships' chronometer
- Parsons and the Turbinia steam turbine
- The ARM chip and some of the early IT stuff
Of course the latest example is saving £350m a week that has since resulted in the UK running up extra costs of £500m(ish) per week...
The BBC just needs to go commercial in these areas and have done with it
That could also make her a significant example of a grassroots favourite who doesn't come across as loopy to the general public, making her even better placed.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/penny-mordaunt-emerges-as-dark-horse-candidate-to-succeed-boris-johnson
We are seeing it now with Joe Rogan. He must be far right because...insert weird view he has which right wing people have in the US e.g. vaccines.
10,000 eur fine
It would be interesting to find out how many were like me and hadn’t bothered to switch yet.
Formally, the argument here is identical to Leon's. I don't see the problem with either.
She was a Leaver in 2016 but backed Hunt in 2019, so arguably ideally positioned for post Boris Tory leadership. She also has strong GOP links having worked as Head of Foreign Press for the George W Bush campaign in 2000 and again for the Bush campaign in 2004
Bush is ofcourse not a friend of Trump. Backing Hunt over Boris again doesn't seem too crazy.
Parson was encouraged and sponsored by the Royal Navy's chief engineer. The famous dash past the Navy was almost certainly pre-arranged. The RN started buying turbine propelled ships the moment that it was shown that Parsons had been able to achieve vaguely useful efficiencies - between turbine design and propellor speed, up to then you build a turbine powered ship, but it would burn coal at an insane rate.
Forty years ago last week, the BBC started a computer literacy campaign. To do this, they wanted a computer that could do the stuff they wanted, and eventually went with Acorn. The Thatcher government then started the 'micros in every school' project, which helped get at least one computer in every primary and secondary school in the country - and which taught a generation basic (or more) computer skills. I still remember when my primary school got their first Acorn, and the world it opened up to me.
That seems farcical nowadays, when we often have several computers on our person, but at the time it was a massively important step.
And Acorn went on to use that money to develop a little chip you might have heard of.
Here's Thatcher's rather excellent speech from 1981 about the role of computers in education;
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104609
Not short-sighted or penny-pinching at all.
I can't see what's quite so difficult about that basic idea.
Ask Wales?
Have Oxfam identified how they are going to make up for all the jobs that will destroy, and the wealth it will devastate?
But I need a meat hammer, in the absence of Cretan Cliffs to bash it on 50 times in my garden.
He was also not a great party leader, losing 2 out of 3 general elections and losing the popular vote in the other.
Without Hitler, Churchill would never have got near becoming Tory leader, great war leader though he was
Gray report says rotten culture but not damning on PM knowledge; Big mea culpa + clearout of inner circle; More letters go in but 54 not hit; Major move to address April cost of living crunch; better than expected May locals. (Theoretically)
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1483098095634329600
However I did say generally, there are a few exceptions like Churchill but Gary Neville is no Churchill