TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
Wasn't Brexit partly about pushing back the tide of globalisation?
I sense an opportunity for Starmer here. Privatising C4, threats to the BBC, foreign ownership of most of our top football clubs, and so on. Rather than letting all our worthwhile assets end up in the hands of globalised corporate chains, let's defend the family silver. The public owns C4 and the BBC - not the government.
Absolutely. Its the same feeling from a different demographic. Same as Trump. Those people are misguided if they think Brexit or Trump could totally reverse that process.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't.
Not entirely correct, according to the BARB figures I posted a couple of days ago. Apparently linear TV plus iplayer is watched for between 1 hour/day (youngsters) to 6 hours per day (oldies). I suspect that includes a lot of "having it on in the background", but soaps and the 6 o'clock news continue to dominate.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside....
The other thing is that this isn't a "young people are lefties, old people are righties so in the future we'll all be leftwing" kind of thing. People's views may change as they grow older, their use of technology does not.
People who grew up leaving the BBC on because its the only channel to have on may still do that, but aren't going to be around forever. People who grew up streaming and with a plethora of channels aren't suddenly going to settle down and love the BBC as they get older, they already know there's more than one channel and are used to getting whatever they want, from wherever they want it.
I see the discussion has turned to the joys of FPTP.
- If you don't vote for one of the Big Two, your vote is "wasted" [1] and others will choose for you. - If you do vote for one of the Big Two, you cement the binary choice and if the Big Two see fit to present a choice of Corbyn or Johnson, well, that's just what you should expect.
Then we spend four or five years complaining about how crap the political leadership of the country is, and how bad were the choices given us, and we go around the cycle again.
[1] Spoiler - if the candidate you voted for wins by more than one vote, or loses, your vote was "wasted" anyway. Had you not turned up, the result would have been the same. You may as well have voted for who you preferred.
Even under PR, UK general elections would have a choice between exactly two potential Prime Ministers. Except depending on the details it might be decided by politicians behind closed doors.
"Change the voting system to fix X" is almost always a red herring. Unless the X you're trying to fix is "I want more Liberal Democrat MPs".
Under PR, parties can't be propped up simply by "lack of choice." Which means the Big Two don't get to coast by in that position on sheer inertia; those two can fall back and be overtaken by others. Relying on the negative vote of others would not be enough; they'd have to actually try to win positive votes for themselves.
They can also fission far easier; the groups within each party able to forge their own ways and represent themselves to the electorate. Who can then pass judgement on the relative strengths they'd like to see of a whole bunch of views in Parliament.
The entire "It might be decided by politicians behind closed doors" argument is handwaving: the choice of the two they give us under FPTP is ALWAYS done behind closed doors. Under PR, should the wrong choice be made by the politicians, we can vote the buggers out next time around - the way we've always done it (except with less in the way of constraints on our vote).
But the supporters of the Big Two seem to be scared of genuine competition, so resolve to keep the current method where they're locked in. And then have a go at others for not supporting one or the other of the only two they ever want us to be able to choose between. After which, they'll cheerfully claim the begrudged votes as full and hearty support for their entire manifesto.
The "free market" Conservatives love for competition and belief that it improves things never extends to themselves (I'll give an honourable exception to @HYUFD , who has previously said that he was in favour of voting reform).
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
Young adults already watch more subscription streaming TV (like Netflix) than ALL broadcast TV and broadcaster streaming (like iPlayer) combined. When you add stuff like YouTube to the mix it's not even close, the ratio is nearer 2:1 already. So traditional broadcasters keep doing the same thing, there can't possibly be a huge problem developing before your eyes.
Absolutely, YouTube and Twitch have enormous viewership, and the production quality just increases every year. The big channels they have basically just cut out the middle men gatekeepers. Some of them now have large teams and a family of complimentary YouTube channels, while being able to do what they want without having to convince some commissioning person at BBC, CH4 etc that their ideas for a new series is worthwhile.
What YouTube allows these people again is to innovate, try things, if they don't work, they just pivot. And they can do this in the space of weeks or months, rather than traditional process of trying to get anything made for linear tv that can take forever.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
No change is simply a slower death. If the likes of the BBC and Channel 4 haven't already figured out that broadcast TV is going the way of the dodo there will be no saving them. They should be demanding change, not clinging on to the past.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
This is like the Government deciding to re-organise Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic, which diverted everyone's energies from fighting the pandemic to working out what the re-organisation meant and having to set up new systems for the successor bodies.
We talk about Global Britain and then the Conservative Government seeks to (unconservatively) meddle with our country's success stories.
"a stable foundation" - well that rules out linear broadcasting models then. "a secure financial footing" - well that rules out the licence fee then, which people reasonably object to and are increasingly and rightly refusing to pay.
Glad we're agreed. What they need is to evolve and develop their own funding models secure for the future, not be decrepit and tied to the past.
If the entities instead try to cling to the past they don't deserve to survive the change and they should be allowed to wither and die.
Again, Channel 4 is profitable. It had an annual surplus of £74million in 2020. I find it so vexing that people think companies need to strive to make all of the money. Channel 4 makes a profit and it makes or owns programmes people like. Why isn't that enough?
It makes a profit today, its surviving today, but its base is crumbling. Linear TV is dying. Commercial TV is dying.
Either we leave it to wither and die, or we free it to compete. I prefer the latter, I wonder why you lack confidence in its ability to do so?
Absolutely, YouTube and Twitch have enormous viewership, and the production quality just increases every year. The big channels they have basically just cut out the middle men gatekeepers.
I think a big problem with this debate is that if you are predominantly a broadcast TV viewer, and in particular the main free-to-air channels, you probably aren't aware of just how much things have changed. I don't watch much TV of any sort at all, but I also see how different TV viewing is amongst my family to they way it was when I was a kid. There's no sitting down after school to watch the BBC for 90 minutes before dinner with a glass of orange squash. It's more like Roblox on the laptop and YouTube on the phone at the same time.
Sunak was given the Chancellor's job specifically because he was considered a lightweight mediocrity, which is basically why all current Cabinet ministers are in place. So it is no surprise that this is exactly what he has turned out to be.
Not really, or are you forgetting that he successfully managed one of the biggest state interventions in the economy in recent history?
Absolutely, YouTube and Twitch have enormous viewership, and the production quality just increases every year. The big channels they have basically just cut out the middle men gatekeepers.
I think a big problem with this debate is that if you are predominantly a broadcast TV viewer, and in particular the main free-to-air channels, you probably aren't aware of just how much things have changed. I don't watch much TV of any sort at all, but I also see how different TV viewing is amongst my family to they way it was when I was a kid. There's no sitting down after school to watch the BBC for 90 minutes before dinner with a glass of orange squash. It's more like Roblox on the laptop and YouTube on the phone at the same time.
You are probably right.
I don't have kids, but my best mate does and we "child sit" having their kids round to hang out on a regular basis. Its instant fire up YouTube on the telly, iPad playing some game, or they bring their Xbox and have that on the telly, while YouTube on their phone. And if we say you want to watch a movie etc, they just instant fire up Netflix. They don't interact with the free to air channel, nor even try to go on Sky for Sky Cinema (which we don't have as we don't use it).
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.
The thing is that the atrocities in Bucha are entirely credible, when the Russian army clearly is quite happy to use heavy artillery and missiles on civilian flats, schools, shops and theatres. The killing by shooting and robbing is just a bit more intimate, but fundamentally the same crime.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.
Which is exactly what Theresa May proposed in 2017. Everyone would get to keep £100,000 in assets but all of their assets over £100k, including their home, would be liable for their social care costs, whether residential or domestic.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
The money does still need to come from somewhere, though.
And if you are not taking it from inheritances, you must be taking it from workers' pockets.
At some point said workers might be less than 100% happy with the trade.
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
It's worth challenging them. EDF wanted to more than double my monthly direct debit - I asked them to "show me their working" and when they couldn't they agreed to an increase of 54% in line with the unit increases.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
That's surely not the case in reality [edit]. Broadcasting is quite heavily regulated by a not very arms length arrangement given the way the Conservatives have been so heavily engaged in ensuring their own chair for Ofcom.
Maybe one or two PBers will find this the best story for some time; the perfect mix of heartwarming and 'I slightly am glad it is someone else'; classic pics
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
I haven't had mine yet from Octopus.
I trust you took readings on March 31st/1st April to prevent you paying the new rate on gas that you used before if they mis-estimated.
It sounds like time to consider a house battery or a diversion device if you have not done one.
Are you on an electric car? If so, special tariffs may be available.
I have now checked Octopus.
They are suggesting an increase in my monthly payment from £91 to £97, which I bet my bottom dollar will change again later. OTOH my big rise will be gas c/h next winter, and my CH is pretty much off now.
(Interesting that we are still exporting 6% of our generation to France if I read this chart correctly, including some I think coming in from Ireland.)
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.
Film4 isn't in HD on Freeview....movies not in HD.....just what I want on my massive OLED telly. Fires up random YouTube, oh look, 4K.....
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.
The thing is that the atrocities in Bucha are entirely credible, when the Russian army clearly is quite happy to use heavy artillery and missiles on civilian flats, schools, shops and theatres. The killing by shooting and robbing is just a bit more intimate, but fundamentally the same crime.
Heavy artillery on civilian flats, schools, shops and theatres = a bombing campaign.
Horrible as it is it is a long-established element of conflict. Not to deny that there have been atrocities (I have no idea whatsoever) but a bombing campaign doesn't necessarily mean that there have been.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Shanghai residents go to their balconies to sing & protest lack of supplies. A drone appears: “Please comply w covid restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Absolutely right. They both need to be freed up. Broadcast as a model is changing and they need to be able to respond.
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
I haven't had mine yet from Octopus.
I trust you took readings on March 31st/1st April to prevent you paying the new rate on gas that you used before if they mis-estimated.
It sounds like time to consider a house battery or a diversion device if you have not done one.
Are you on an electric car? If so, special tariffs may be available.
Any insights/experience on house battery systems? We looked into it a couple of years back for our solar panels, but there was a very wide range of options and suppliers, hard to pick out a good one/work out suitable capacity (I guess a good supplier would do this for you). We've instead tried hard to optimise our appliance use, but there are plenty of things it is more convenient to run after dark...
Diverter no use to us as no hot tank. Our energy bill is somewhat less eye-watering (~£2400 according to latest direct debit change; up from ~£840 before this all kicked off, so similar % change)
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
It's worth challenging them. EDF wanted to more than double my monthly direct debit - I asked them to "show me their working" and when they couldn't they agreed to an increase of 54% in line with the unit increases.
Thanks. Working it out based on our past usage using the capped rates it comes to £3,620 so yes, they've assumed an extra 9% of usage... for no reason whatsoever.
I see we are at the German Landsers skewering Belgian babies on bayonets stage of the propaganda war.
The thing is that the atrocities in Bucha are entirely credible, when the Russian army clearly is quite happy to use heavy artillery and missiles on civilian flats, schools, shops and theatres. The killing by shooting and robbing is just a bit more intimate, but fundamentally the same crime.
That intercept feels fake though. I can just about believe Russian thugs are going around chasing children and shooting them in the legs 'for fun'... but bragging to their wives about it on the phone? Nah.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't.
Not entirely correct, according to the BARB figures I posted a couple of days ago. Apparently linear TV plus iplayer is watched for between 1 hour/day (youngsters) to 6 hours per day (oldies). I suspect that includes a lot of "having it on in the background", but soaps and the 6 o'clock news continue to dominate.
I slightly adjusted my comment. But a) I am a bit dubious of that methodology e.g. 6hrs on average for oldies seem nonsense and b) the trend if your friend.....the trend is going one way, away from linear tv and fast.
The question isn't what is the state of play now, its whats the state of play in 5 years. 5G is coming, that means streaming anywhere that has it will become trivial. In the car, on the train, out in the countryside, and will be available in 4k / HDR.
Recently I have been up to 5+ hours a day with BBC WS on background. When I plumb in the new "Thou Shalt Log In To IPlayer" directive, I can have a bit of R4 back.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.
The BBC is a global icon in broadcasting. Channel 4 is a lot younger, but punches well above its weight. The Conservatives say they want to celebrate Global Britain, but starting fights with our world-leading enterprises seems an odd way to celebrate them.
It's pretty clear that these moves have nothing really to do with making Channel 4 more agile and able to complete with Netflix. It's because the Government gets its knickers in a twist if they receive any media coverage less fawning than the Daily Mail's and so they don't like Channel 4 News.
Everything is in the state's orbit. Netflix or ITV still have to follow UK company and broadcasting laws. I don't want Nadine Dorries to get a say given she's clearly incompetent, but unfortunately the Conservative Party seem to like her.
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
I haven't had mine yet from Octopus.
I trust you took readings on March 31st/1st April to prevent you paying the new rate on gas that you used before if they mis-estimated.
It sounds like time to consider a house battery or a diversion device if you have not done one.
Are you on an electric car? If so, special tariffs may be available.
Thanks. Yes submitted a meter reading on 31st March and have the photos. We don't have an electric car - really do too few miles to justify it atm.
Batteries may be an option. Issue is we expect to move to downsize in 5 or so years so we won't get the payback, although it adds to the value of the house I guess.
Anyone got any recommendations about house batteries? Use with our existing 4kW PV or install additional PV? (We have the roof space.)
Maybe one or two PBers will find this the best story for some time; the perfect mix of heartwarming and 'I slightly am glad it is someone else'; classic pics
There are some triplets live on the road behind me - three four(?) year olds, and also their six(?) year old older brother. They are unbearably lovely. I see them most mornings on the school run. The utter joy the four of them take in each others' company is wonderful to see.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.
Isn't it HD for everything except local news? The BBC is HD on its primary listing on Freeview. Where Sky put it... well, Sky aren't exactly a neutral party.
Providing local news broadcasts is the sort of thing public broadcasting supports. Netflix or Sky would never do such things. But then I think Nadine Dorries would rather you get your news from her social media accounts!
Russian nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky is dead after a long battle with covid.
I hate to be so blunt about this, but the world is a better place without him in it.
Also people don't have "long battles" with diseases, they have the disease for a long time and die of it. Long battles are with Ukrainians.
The 'battle' metaphor when dealing with sickness is very overused and is quite a destructive way of looking at your body. Even a 'victory' in such a battle leaves one weakened and vulnerable to the next 'battle'. We should always see the process as reclaiming our health.
Our electricity costs are going to be £3,943 this year. Last year on a fixed deal we were paying £1,345.
That's a 293% increase with more to come in October! 😬
I can help but laugh that we're being charged 28.455p a unit and being paid 5.57p for the units we export from our PV panels.
It's worth challenging them. EDF wanted to more than double my monthly direct debit - I asked them to "show me their working" and when they couldn't they agreed to an increase of 54% in line with the unit increases.
Thanks. Working it out based on our past usage using the capped rates it comes to £3,620 so yes, they've assumed an extra 9% of usage... for no reason whatsoever.
But even so.
I really am at a loss to understand just how consumers mitigate this gas crisis, and even governments who can only really assist at the margins
Consumers will react though by thinking every time they put on the heating if it is absolutely necessary, others will consider migrating from gas cooking to electric, and of course the next 6 months will see demand for heating drop due to the spring and summer seasons
I assume market forces will come into play as gas demand falls, not only here but across Europe and beyond, gas prices should fall and over the medium term the transition to green energy will see gas diminish as a source of energy much like coal has
My son in law has just contacted me to say his energy bankers orders has risen another £100 per month
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Absolutely right. They both need to be freed up. Broadcast as a model is changing and they need to be able to respond.
Channel 4 is freer to respond in public ownership than if it has to answer to shareholders.
As I recall, it was widely held on here that Sunak had to move for the top job before March, because by April, the tax rises, rise in energy prices and general inflation hitting would make him very unpopular and hence much worse placed to challenge.
Well done, everyone.
It didn't have to be that way but he totally misjudged the budget and is justifiably paying the price
You were one of his biggest cheerleaders, ROFL
Just as you cheered on Corbyn, but I have admitted he has disappointed me and I have attacked his budget since it was announced
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Corbyn on us
Yes but you're trying to pretend that you saw this coming, when you didn't.
You were saying literally a month ago how "Rishi must take over now".
You do not get to play judge when you would have imposed Rishi on us.
What would you have have done differently to RS over the past 2 years?
He has had to deal with the biggest Government spending scheme since WW2 in order to preserve companies and peoples jobs. It was incredible how quickly the schemes were set up, they were run very efficiently and they worked. It was an amazing achievement and the Country remains at full employment.
Now he is looking to recover a tiny percentage of that money he is apparently the worst chancellor ever,
What utter nonsense!!
What would I have done differently? Not increase National Insurance.
Furthermore if there's room for tax cuts (planned for Income Tax) then that should go 100% into reversing the NI hike, not being gifted to those who don't pay NI.
Sunak isn't the worst Chancellor in history, that accolade still belongs to one Gordon Brown, but Sunak has stolen his clothes and is wearing them. NI is raised because its 2p in tax rises but the media says 1p, Brown knew that and Sunak is copying him.
I may have tipped him at 250/1 but I don't want a poundshop Gordon Brown in Downing Street.
So how would you pay for Social Care or would you just keep avoiding the problem?
No avoidance necessary. I don't think its right for the taxpayers to provide for other people's inheritances. If people spend their savings on Care at the end of their life, then that's what they've saved for - a rainy day.
Which is exactly what Theresa May proposed in 2017. Everyone would get to keep £100,000 in assets but all of their assets over £100k, including their home, would be liable for their social care costs, whether residential or domestic.
The public loved the plan so much she lost her majority. Boris ensured it was dumped by the 2019 general election and got a majority of 80
The money does still need to come from somewhere, though.
And if you are not taking it from inheritances, you must be taking it from workers' pockets.
At some point said workers might be less than 100% happy with the trade.
As I pointed out earlier the money is coming instead from the National Insurance rise now Boris has capped liabilities of assets for social care at £86k.
However the rise is focused on higher earners, with those earning more than £100k seeing the biggest NI rise. Workers earning under £34k will actually see a cut in the NI they pay from the changes
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Absolutely right. They both need to be freed up. Broadcast as a model is changing and they need to be able to respond.
I would comment that if HMG can get 1 billion from selling Channel 4 then do so as broadcast media in its present form has a poor future
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
I agree with you there. Privitisation alone will not save Channel 4, just as maintaining the BBC licence fee will not save it. And obviously Dorries is incompetent.
The problem is that in both cases what is likely to be needed to preserve what is best about the BBC and Channel 4 involves a huge amount of change, and there is little evidence that either entity is up for that.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody arguing against selling off is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....yes we know Netflix etc is here, but what are the proposals.
I am not saying selling it off is necessarily the right move, but no change is not an answer.
You linked to their plans for 2025, and its a joke. Buzz word salad, a commitment to spend all of £30 million on some programmes and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
That's not a plan to compete with 2025 media landscape, that a plan to compete with 2010 landscape.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
In a way, that's the point. To play the money game against US giants is to lose.
Maybe British creatives can only win by continuing to play their game- less product, lower budget, telling stories in an intangibly British way. There's reasonable evidence that works and a sufficiency of Americans will pay to watch it as well.
A bit like the way that lower league football clubs often thrive better without being taken over by a rich benefactor.
I think good writing makes all the difference. After you've got a decent to good budget for a drama (even if it's very effect-focused), you can afford good talent and visuals, then the money spent above that just becomes numbers. Britbox has started commissioning drama, and they made a frothy series called 'Hotel Portofino' - great in terms of visuals, actors, costumes, but the writing was 2nd rate.
25 years in prison for the former leader of the Lord's Resistance Army at the ICC:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) today imposed a 25-year-sentence on Dominic Ongwen, a former leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The sentence marks an important milestone in the search for justice for victims of the grave international crimes committed by this notorious armed group in northern Uganda.
At the sentencing hearing, the court explained that it weighed a number of considerations, including the breadth and gravity of the crimes and Ongwen’s culpability, but also the fact he was abducted as a child, forced to join the LRA, and lost any opportunity to become a “valuable member of his community.” Ongwen – the first LRA leader to be held accountable – had been found guilty of 61 war crimes and crimes against humanity that included hundreds killed, child victims, and sexual violence.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
The flaw with this argument is why should we believe a privatised Channel 4 will become a second Netflix when no rationale at all is put forward for the change, beyond Nadine wants this? Channel 4 has a niche in its current form. What will the privatised version offer?
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.
C4 makes a profit which it puts into future programming. All that populist rubbish funds the interesting good stuff. Same way that provincial theatres cross-subsidise from panto season to the rest of the year. ITV still does it a bit, albeit nowhere near as much as in the past.
What C4 doesn't currently do is distribute profits. That's the elegance of the status quo. Capitalist ingenuity forced to do something capitalism wouldn't normally touch. Whether it's Thatcherism subverted or Thatcherism doing what she wanted but rarely achieved, I don't know.
And if the theory is that C4 can do the good stuff it currently does, and be better and give a reasonable steam of cash as a return to whoever stumped up £1 billion for it... I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd like some clarity about how it does that.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
The flaw with this argument is why should we believe a privatised Channel 4 will become a second Netflix when no rationale at all is put forward for the change, beyond Nadine wants this? Channel 4 has a niche in its current form. What will the privatised version offer?
If you don't think CH4 or BBC need to change given the rapidly shifting globalised streaming world well I can't help you.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM. I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world, and just defer to we can't change like that and never produce any coherent alternative.
They are ultimately signing their own death warrants if they try to carry on like this for the next 5-10 years.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
The flaw with this argument is why should we believe a privatised Channel 4 will become a second Netflix when no rationale at all is put forward for the change, beyond Nadine wants this? Channel 4 has a niche in its current form. What will the privatised version offer?
If you don't think CH4 or BBC need to change given the rapidly shifting globalised streaming world well I can't help you.
But why THIS change?
We need to do something. This is something. <--- this remains stupid logic.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.
The BBC is a global icon in broadcasting. Channel 4 is a lot younger, but punches well above its weight. The Conservatives say they want to celebrate Global Britain, but starting fights with our world-leading enterprises seems an odd way to celebrate them.
It's pretty clear that these moves have nothing really to do with making Channel 4 more agile and able to complete with Netflix. It's because the Government gets its knickers in a twist if they receive any media coverage less fawning than the Daily Mail's and so they don't like Channel 4 News.
Everything is in the state's orbit. Netflix or ITV still have to follow UK company and broadcasting laws. I don't want Nadine Dorries to get a say given she's clearly incompetent, but unfortunately the Conservative Party seem to like her.
Of course if the BBC wants to raise revenue via a licence fee it can do so privately, its generally called a subscription when private entities do it though. There's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except the licence fee is charged even on people who want to consume other live broadcasting instead of the BBC - eg Sky Sports etc - whereas private entities can't charge you for consuming somebody else's product. So if you mean they can't opt to do that in the future - no, nor should they have ever been allowed to that's an historical anomaly that needs fixing.
The BBC was a global icon in broadcasting. About sixty years ago, decades before I was born, when Monty Python was a thing. Now? Not so much.
That you think the BBC is world leading shows you're so far in denial you might as well be in Egypt. No wonder you thought those embarrassing buzzword bingo links you sent earlier about how they might in the future have suggestions was them adapting.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
FPTP tends to give us stability, except when it doesn't.
Indeed. See: Scotland at Westminster since 2010. Seats are only safe - and the top two are only the top two - for as long as the voters decide they are.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
FPTP tends to give us stability, except when it doesn't.
Indeed. See: Scotland at Westminster since 2010. Seats are only safe - and the top two are only the top two - for as long as the voters decide they are.
See also 1997 and 2019 when previously 'safe' Tory and Labour seats were lost.
Though it tends to only happen in landslide years and even then the ultra safe seats survive
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
They will be able to adapt, sink or swim, without clinging on to the failed mantras and funding of the past.
When people debated the licence fee when I was a child the alternative imagined was commercial TV. The reality is there isn't much of a future anymore either for the licence fee or commercial TV - both have been surpassed by better, newer models.
If they won't adapt, then they deserve to wither and die. But give them the chance to at least try to adapt.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
FPTP tends to give us stability, except when it doesn't.
Indeed. See: Scotland at Westminster since 2010. Seats are only safe - and the top two are only the top two - for as long as the voters decide they are.
See 1983. Was there even a "top 2" that year? The third placed party got fully a quarter of the vote.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Forget 4k, BBC One still isn't even in HD on its primary listing on Sky as not all regions are HD-ready yet in their broadcasts apparently. Every other channel switching to HD from "HD-ready" is something people were dealing with at the turn of the century, not now.
It is on Virgin now, I noticed a few days ago - I'm not sure when it changed but it must have been since the Euros as that would have been the last time I watched BBC1 live.
Essentially, the only live TV I ever watch on a TV is sport or the occasional quiz show if I happen to be near a TV when it's on. But streaming still isn't good enough for live sport - the picture quality on Amazon football or tennis matches is obviously not right on a biggish TV.
Call me insane, but I reckon the "linear TV is going the way of the dodo" viewpoint is similar to the "physical cash is going the way of the dodo" one, in that in current trends its true until it hits a floor that people go "yes but what about in this circumstance...".
There's no doubt a migration and a likely end point that is no linear TV and no linear cash, but it might end up being on a longer timescale than you'd think from the recent trendlines, driven by demographics as much as anything.
I am of course prepared to be proven entirely wrong in the near future!
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.
The BBC is a global icon in broadcasting. Channel 4 is a lot younger, but punches well above its weight. The Conservatives say they want to celebrate Global Britain, but starting fights with our world-leading enterprises seems an odd way to celebrate them.
It's pretty clear that these moves have nothing really to do with making Channel 4 more agile and able to complete with Netflix. It's because the Government gets its knickers in a twist if they receive any media coverage less fawning than the Daily Mail's and so they don't like Channel 4 News.
Everything is in the state's orbit. Netflix or ITV still have to follow UK company and broadcasting laws. I don't want Nadine Dorries to get a say given she's clearly incompetent, but unfortunately the Conservative Party seem to like her.
Of course if the BBC wants to raise revenue via a licence fee it can do so privately, its generally called a subscription when private entities do it though. There's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except the licence fee is charged even on people who want to consume other live broadcasting instead of the BBC - eg Sky Sports etc - whereas private entities can't charge you for consuming somebody else's product. So if you mean they can't opt to do that in the future - no, nor should they have ever been allowed to that's an historical anomaly that needs fixing.
The BBC was a global icon in broadcasting. About sixty years ago, decades before I was born, when Monty Python was a thing. Now? Not so much.
That you think the BBC is world leading shows you're so far in denial you might as well be in Egypt. No wonder you thought those embarrassing buzzword bingo links you sent earlier about how they might in the future have suggestions was them adapting.
So you're saying there's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except for the difference...?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
They will be able to adapt, sink or swim, without clinging on to the failed mantras and funding of the past.
When people debated the licence fee when I was a child the alternative imagined was commercial TV. The reality is there isn't much of a future anymore either for the licence fee or commercial TV - both have been surpassed by better, newer models.
If they won't adapt, then they deserve to wither and die. But give them the chance to at least try to adapt.
"without clinging on to the failed mantras and funding of the past" - they are profitable today, right now, with The Crown and Clarkson's Farm rampant on the streaming services so something is going right.
"isn't much of a future for....commercial TV" - well obvs Netflix and Amazon are commercial tv stations. In addition, there might be a substantial number of people who are willing to accept adverts in return for "free" tv.
I think Channel 4 (and the Beeb) should be privatised but for goodness sake keep it to the political ideological arguments (ie the state has no business running these things) rather than spurious "proofs" of failed or inferior business models which manifestly aren't failing or inferior.
25 years in prison for the former leader of the Lord's Resistance Army at the ICC:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) today imposed a 25-year-sentence on Dominic Ongwen, a former leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The sentence marks an important milestone in the search for justice for victims of the grave international crimes committed by this notorious armed group in northern Uganda.
At the sentencing hearing, the court explained that it weighed a number of considerations, including the breadth and gravity of the crimes and Ongwen’s culpability, but also the fact he was abducted as a child, forced to join the LRA, and lost any opportunity to become a “valuable member of his community.” Ongwen – the first LRA leader to be held accountable – had been found guilty of 61 war crimes and crimes against humanity that included hundreds killed, child victims, and sexual violence.
It's perhaps a sad reflection on my state of mind that the presence of "Lords" and "ICC" in the first sentence made me think this was somehow cricket related and thinking that was a harsh sentence for any kind of cricket-related hooliganary!
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
The Government shouldn't decide, Channel 4 and the BBC should once they're privatised they can raise their revenues however they choose.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
Once the BBC is privatised, it cannot choose to raise revenues through a license fee.
The BBC is a global icon in broadcasting. Channel 4 is a lot younger, but punches well above its weight. The Conservatives say they want to celebrate Global Britain, but starting fights with our world-leading enterprises seems an odd way to celebrate them.
It's pretty clear that these moves have nothing really to do with making Channel 4 more agile and able to complete with Netflix. It's because the Government gets its knickers in a twist if they receive any media coverage less fawning than the Daily Mail's and so they don't like Channel 4 News.
Everything is in the state's orbit. Netflix or ITV still have to follow UK company and broadcasting laws. I don't want Nadine Dorries to get a say given she's clearly incompetent, but unfortunately the Conservative Party seem to like her.
Of course if the BBC wants to raise revenue via a licence fee it can do so privately, its generally called a subscription when private entities do it though. There's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except the licence fee is charged even on people who want to consume other live broadcasting instead of the BBC - eg Sky Sports etc - whereas private entities can't charge you for consuming somebody else's product. So if you mean they can't opt to do that in the future - no, nor should they have ever been allowed to that's an historical anomaly that needs fixing.
The BBC was a global icon in broadcasting. About sixty years ago, decades before I was born, when Monty Python was a thing. Now? Not so much.
That you think the BBC is world leading shows you're so far in denial you might as well be in Egypt. No wonder you thought those embarrassing buzzword bingo links you sent earlier about how they might in the future have suggestions was them adapting.
So you're saying there's no difference between the licence fee and other subscription fees except for the difference...?
For @BR a subscription service somehow makes those services non-commercial.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM. I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
You didn't "choose someone else to be PM" because there was no third option. And you delegated the choice between the possible options to others.
My meeting was comical this morning. We're back in the office all face to face, but I was in the boardroom on my own on TEAMS because my boss and the engineering director both have covid, and near the end the builders doing my bosses' extension cut through my his internet cable !!
Have to admit hybrid working is fun.
Really enjoy seeing the pets of my colleagues.
Seen so many arseholes of cats over the last two years.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM. I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
You didn't "choose someone else to be PM" because there was no third option. And you delegated the choice between the possible options to others.
You're still trying to categorise me as either a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim. What if I'm just a Muslim Muslim?
There was a third choice. I literally voted for it. There were more than three choices, you gaslighting freak.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM. I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
You didn't "choose someone else to be PM" because there was no third option. And you delegated the choice between the possible options to others.
You're still trying to categorise me as either a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim. What if I'm just a Muslim Muslim?
There was a third choice. I literally voted for it. There were more than three choices, you gaslighting freak.
There were exactly two possible Prime Ministers - Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. I'm sorry that you don't like that fact, but since you've resorted to plain insult, I think we'd better leave it there.
The more I think about this, the more I think Applicant has got this completely backwards.
You have two choices in casting your vote. You either (1) just choose the closest to what you believe in irrespective of what everyone else is doing. Or you (2) choose your vote based on who you think has a realistic chance of winning (perhaps locally perhaps nationally) and then choose the least worst option.
In the last election I did (1). Yet Applicant is trying to tell me I somehow "delegated" my choice to others. It's exactly the opposite. I chose my own choice ignoring the fact that it wouldn't win (locally or nationally). If you do (2), then you are delegating your range of choices to others.
No, I did not, and I have already told you that is not what I am saying. Please stop saying I'm saying something that I have already told you I am not.
What I am saying is that you chose (1), and in doing so you delegated the choice of PM to others.
There are two things decided in a general election: your local MP, and the government/PM.
I'm not sure why you're being obtuse. It's not difficult to understand: you can vote either for (or against) one of the two parties (and its leader) that can form a goverment (and become PM) or you can vote for a local candidate (or their party) that you like. [If you're lucky, the two can coincide.]
You're agreeing with me that you chose to not choose a PM - but for some reason you won't accept that the effect of this is that it delegated the choice of PM to others. Why? Is it because it exposes your self-righhteous "I voted against both" for what it is?
No, I am not; you haven't listened to a word I said.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM. I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
You didn't "choose someone else to be PM" because there was no third option. And you delegated the choice between the possible options to others.
You're still trying to categorise me as either a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim. What if I'm just a Muslim Muslim?
There was a third choice. I literally voted for it. There were more than three choices, you gaslighting freak.
Even Muslims are Shia or Sunni, the Protestant v Roman Catholic divide of Islam!
And interesting read from an exiled Russian intellectual. The Russian Federation falls apart. Muscovy and a separate St Petersburg state, and then east of the Urals fragments.
Westminster refurbishment estimated to cost £22b. That's a lot of channel4s. Perhaps we could make saving there and a few other places. Heck the Brexit £350m/wk Brexit dividend Boris promised should pay for Ch4 before the end of the month.
Call me insane, but I reckon the "linear TV is going the way of the dodo" viewpoint is similar to the "physical cash is going the way of the dodo" one, in that in current trends its true until it hits a floor that people go "yes but what about in this circumstance...".
There's no doubt a migration and a likely end point that is no linear TV and no linear cash, but it might end up being on a longer timescale than you'd think from the recent trendlines, driven by demographics as much as anything.
I am of course prepared to be proven entirely wrong in the near future!
I seem to recall cheques were going to be ended in, what, 2016?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
Comments
People who grew up leaving the BBC on because its the only channel to have on may still do that, but aren't going to be around forever. People who grew up streaming and with a plethora of channels aren't suddenly going to settle down and love the BBC as they get older, they already know there's more than one channel and are used to getting whatever they want, from wherever they want it.
They can also fission far easier; the groups within each party able to forge their own ways and represent themselves to the electorate. Who can then pass judgement on the relative strengths they'd like to see of a whole bunch of views in Parliament.
The entire "It might be decided by politicians behind closed doors" argument is handwaving: the choice of the two they give us under FPTP is ALWAYS done behind closed doors. Under PR, should the wrong choice be made by the politicians, we can vote the buggers out next time around - the way we've always done it (except with less in the way of constraints on our vote).
But the supporters of the Big Two seem to be scared of genuine competition, so resolve to keep the current method where they're locked in. And then have a go at others for not supporting one or the other of the only two they ever want us to be able to choose between. After which, they'll cheerfully claim the begrudged votes as full and hearty support for their entire manifesto.
The "free market" Conservatives love for competition and belief that it improves things never extends to themselves (I'll give an honourable exception to @HYUFD , who has previously said that he was in favour of voting reform).
What YouTube allows these people again is to innovate, try things, if they don't work, they just pivot. And they can do this in the space of weeks or months, rather than traditional process of trying to get anything made for linear tv that can take forever.
We are seeing it with podcasts as well.
Either we leave it to wither and die, or we free it to compete. I prefer the latter, I wonder why you lack confidence in its ability to do so?
I trust you took readings on March 31st/1st April to prevent you paying the new rate on gas that you used before if they mis-estimated.
It sounds like time to consider a house battery or a diversion device if you have not done one.
Are you on an electric car? If so, special tariffs may be available.
But I think that all that will have been forgotten.
I don't have kids, but my best mate does and we "child sit" having their kids round to hang out on a regular basis. Its instant fire up YouTube on the telly, iPad playing some game, or they bring their Xbox and have that on the telly, while YouTube on their phone. And if we say you want to watch a movie etc, they just instant fire up Netflix. They don't interact with the free to air channel, nor even try to go on Sky for Sky Cinema (which we don't have as we don't use it).
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Its only if they're in the state's orbit that that like of Dorries gets a say. Why do you want her to?
And if you are not taking it from inheritances, you must be taking it from workers' pockets.
At some point said workers might be less than 100% happy with the trade.
2515 confirmed bits of lost Russian kits, including 434 tanks.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60995514
They are suggesting an increase in my monthly payment from £91 to £97, which I bet my bottom dollar will change again later. OTOH my big rise will be gas c/h next winter, and my CH is pretty much off now.
(Interesting that we are still exporting 6% of our generation to France if I read this chart correctly, including some I think coming in from Ireland.)
If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
Horrible as it is it is a long-established element of conflict. Not to deny that there have been atrocities (I have no idea whatsoever) but a bombing campaign doesn't necessarily mean that there have been.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Diverter no use to us as no hot tank. Our energy bill is somewhat less eye-watering (~£2400 according to latest direct debit change; up from ~£840 before this all kicked off, so similar % change)
But even so.
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
The BBC is a global icon in broadcasting. Channel 4 is a lot younger, but punches well above its weight. The Conservatives say they want to celebrate Global Britain, but starting fights with our world-leading enterprises seems an odd way to celebrate them.
It's pretty clear that these moves have nothing really to do with making Channel 4 more agile and able to complete with Netflix. It's because the Government gets its knickers in a twist if they receive any media coverage less fawning than the Daily Mail's and so they don't like Channel 4 News.
Everything is in the state's orbit. Netflix or ITV still have to follow UK company and broadcasting laws. I don't want Nadine Dorries to get a say given she's clearly incompetent, but unfortunately the Conservative Party seem to like her.
Thanks. Yes submitted a meter reading on 31st March and have the photos. We don't have an electric car - really do too few miles to justify it atm.
Batteries may be an option. Issue is we expect to move to downsize in 5 or so years so we won't get the payback, although it adds to the value of the house I guess.
Anyone got any recommendations about house batteries? Use with our existing 4kW PV or install additional PV? (We have the roof space.)
Providing local news broadcasts is the sort of thing public broadcasting supports. Netflix or Sky would never do such things. But then I think Nadine Dorries would rather you get your news from her social media accounts!
Consumers will react though by thinking every time they put on the heating if it is absolutely necessary, others will consider migrating from gas cooking to electric, and of course the next 6 months will see demand for heating drop due to the spring and summer seasons
I assume market forces will come into play as gas demand falls, not only here but across Europe and beyond, gas prices should fall and over the medium term the transition to green energy will see gas diminish as a source of energy much like coal has
My son in law has just contacted me to say his energy bankers orders has risen another £100 per month
However the rise is focused on higher earners, with those earning more than £100k seeing the biggest NI rise. Workers earning under £34k will actually see a cut in the NI they pay from the changes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60996174
I should say I never watch it anyway
The problem is that in both cases what is likely to be needed to preserve what is best about the BBC and Channel 4 involves a huge amount of change, and there is little evidence that either entity is up for that.
I am not saying selling it off is necessarily the right move, but no change is not an answer.
You linked to their plans for 2025, and its a joke. Buzz word salad, a commitment to spend all of £30 million on some programmes and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
That's not a plan to compete with 2025 media landscape, that a plan to compete with 2010 landscape.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) today imposed a 25-year-sentence on Dominic Ongwen, a former leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The sentence marks an important milestone in the search for justice for victims of the grave international crimes committed by this notorious armed group in northern Uganda.
At the sentencing hearing, the court explained that it weighed a number of considerations, including the breadth and gravity of the crimes and Ongwen’s culpability, but also the fact he was abducted as a child, forced to join the LRA, and lost any opportunity to become a “valuable member of his community.” Ongwen – the first LRA leader to be held accountable – had been found guilty of 61 war crimes and crimes against humanity that included hundreds killed, child victims, and sexual violence.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/05/06/icc-sentences-lra-leader-25-years#:~:text=The International Criminal Court (ICC,armed group in northern Uganda.
@annettepacey
Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237
What C4 doesn't currently do is distribute profits. That's the elegance of the status quo. Capitalist ingenuity forced to do something capitalism wouldn't normally touch. Whether it's Thatcherism subverted or Thatcherism doing what she wanted but rarely achieved, I don't know.
And if the theory is that C4 can do the good stuff it currently does, and be better and give a reasonable steam of cash as a return to whoever stumped up £1 billion for it... I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd like some clarity about how it does that.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
I said I chose for neither Boris nor Corbyn to be PM. I chose someone else to be PM.
I didn't get what I chose, but then again, most people don't. I chose, just like everyone else who voted.
They are ultimately signing their own death warrants if they try to carry on like this for the next 5-10 years.
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
We need to do something. This is something. <--- this remains stupid logic.
The BBC was a global icon in broadcasting. About sixty years ago, decades before I was born, when Monty Python was a thing. Now? Not so much.
That you think the BBC is world leading shows you're so far in denial you might as well be in Egypt. No wonder you thought those embarrassing buzzword bingo links you sent earlier about how they might in the future have suggestions was them adapting.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
Though it tends to only happen in landslide years and even then the ultra safe seats survive
When people debated the licence fee when I was a child the alternative imagined was commercial TV. The reality is there isn't much of a future anymore either for the licence fee or commercial TV - both have been surpassed by better, newer models.
If they won't adapt, then they deserve to wither and die. But give them the chance to at least try to adapt.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Essentially, the only live TV I ever watch on a TV is sport or the occasional quiz show if I happen to be near a TV when it's on. But streaming still isn't good enough for live sport - the picture quality on Amazon football or tennis matches is obviously not right on a biggish TV.
There's no doubt a migration and a likely end point that is no linear TV and no linear cash, but it might end up being on a longer timescale than you'd think from the recent trendlines, driven by demographics as much as anything.
I am of course prepared to be proven entirely wrong in the near future!
"isn't much of a future for....commercial TV" - well obvs Netflix and Amazon are commercial tv stations. In addition, there might be a substantial number of people who are willing to accept adverts in return for "free" tv.
I think Channel 4 (and the Beeb) should be privatised but for goodness sake keep it to the political ideological arguments (ie the state has no business running these things) rather than spurious "proofs" of failed or inferior business models which manifestly aren't failing or inferior.
It's perhaps a sad reflection on my state of mind that the presence of "Lords" and "ICC" in the first sentence made me think this was somehow cricket related and thinking that was a harsh sentence for any kind of cricket-related hooliganary!
Some things should not to be publicly owned, others should. Let's stop being so ideological
What if I'm just a Muslim Muslim?
There was a third choice. I literally voted for it. There were more than three choices, you gaslighting freak.
Speaking to James O'Brien, Sir Keir said there is "no case for rejoining the EU" but Labour will "make it work".
He said: "We can't reverse Brexit. There's no case for rejoining the EU.
And interesting read from an exiled Russian intellectual. The Russian Federation falls apart. Muscovy and a separate St Petersburg state, and then east of the Urals fragments.
https://the.ink/p/is-this-how-russia-ends?s=r
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1511676622251905034?s=20&t=EBiJgNywJ-NSu8O27swnhg
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?