Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s looking like a wake for the Tories in Wakefield – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    ...

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    Post of the day.
    Many of us appreciate that the existence of the BBC (like the existence of the NHS) isn't a bad thing, but that they could be much better.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    My dog has just eaten a bar of soap. He is not happy. Daft dog.

    He's not happy? Just wait until he shits it out - and you won't exactly be ecstatic!
    At the moment it sounds like it might come out of the other end, but hasn't yet. This is a first. He successfully eats wasps without any obvious side effects, but soap, I ask you.
    Is he foaming at the mouth?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    The government pays well over £100m a year to various companies, most notably Capita, for licence fee collection. Surely this isn't defensible and funding the BBC out of general taxation would be better?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited June 2022
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
    Well the license fee probably needs to go.

    But if you’re questioning why we shouldn’t move to a sub-only model, then you’re talking about throwing away the public service model entirely.

    The idea of public service broadcasting can be gleaned from two quotes:

    “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” (Thomas Jefferson)

    And

    “Inform, educate, entertain” (The BBC’s purpose per a Lord Reith).

    You will note the cross-over, and the implication that PSB has a role in the functioning of democracy
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,746
    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    Farooq said:

    Roger said:

    Very impressive light show. In a country with this level of creativity who could have thought it a smart idea to make Nadine Dorries Minister of Culture?

    Give it a rest
    Why? She's a fucking minister, and she's thicker than the Jones section of Welsh phone book. We should be pointing this out every single hour she has any kind of power. There should be a siren going off in the centre of every city to remind us. Give it a rest? Yeah, when she's given a rest from being the first pantomime horse with two back ends to ever attend cabinet.
    I don't think that MP's are thick. Some slip through the net, but they are generally labour MP's. Certainly not Dorries. She is engaged in a performance designed to make you mad, and you all fall for it. Being a conservative in charge of culture, most people you deal with will just hate you from the outset and make your job impossible. The political opportunity is to present yourself as being on the side of the masses against these elites. But it is on a subject that the masses aren't really interested in. So you have to keep engaging in more and more extreme acts of publicity to have any impact. That is what she is doing.
    I know that Dorries is out to wind people up. I happen to think that such a goal is wholly inappropriate for a minister, and that's what winds me up.

    I know all this. Just because someone wants me to react in a particular way, doesn't mean I have to do the opposite. I'm making a judgement that I think is completely sound: that the great ship of state is soiled by even having someone like her on board. Am I triggered? You bet you're arse I'm triggered. Triggered and proud. Because I want the people who govern me to have better standards than the wankers like you and me on message boards. If I were a minister I'd resign immediately because I'm basically a twat who shouldn't be given power. And I'm still a better person to be in charge of stuff than she is.

    Oh, and take care on misreading me. All of the above, and my previous post, was about Dorries. Not "MPs" in general. I don't extrapolate from her to all the rest because she is almost uniquely and abrasively thick. There are one or two others I could name who are perhaps in the same ballpark but they are a minority. As a rule I have more faith in our MPs than most people do, and I think there are brilliant people in each party. Which makes the presence of Dorries all the more jarring. Like a dog turd on a croquet lawn.
    Winding people up is part of democracy. Every government does it. This lot are just more entertaining than normal. Why should this stop? It is what makes politics entertaining. This is actually one of Starmer' s problems, he is just too boring and sensible.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,530
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
    I think the BBC is part of British life . The moments we all share as a nation are what the BBC does best . Perhaps I’m being overly sentimental.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,272
    darkage said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    Farooq said:

    Roger said:

    Very impressive light show. In a country with this level of creativity who could have thought it a smart idea to make Nadine Dorries Minister of Culture?

    Give it a rest
    Why? She's a fucking minister, and she's thicker than the Jones section of Welsh phone book. We should be pointing this out every single hour she has any kind of power. There should be a siren going off in the centre of every city to remind us. Give it a rest? Yeah, when she's given a rest from being the first pantomime horse with two back ends to ever attend cabinet.
    I don't think that MP's are thick. Some slip through the net, but they are generally labour MP's. Certainly not Dorries. She is engaged in a performance designed to make you mad, and you all fall for it. Being a conservative in charge of culture, most people you deal with will just hate you from the outset and make your job impossible. The political opportunity is to present yourself as being on the side of the masses against these elites. But it is on a subject that the masses aren't really interested in. So you have to keep engaging in more and more extreme acts of publicity to have any impact. That is what she is doing.
    I know that Dorries is out to wind people up. I happen to think that such a goal is wholly inappropriate for a minister, and that's what winds me up.

    I know all this. Just because someone wants me to react in a particular way, doesn't mean I have to do the opposite. I'm making a judgement that I think is completely sound: that the great ship of state is soiled by even having someone like her on board. Am I triggered? You bet you're arse I'm triggered. Triggered and proud. Because I want the people who govern me to have better standards than the wankers like you and me on message boards. If I were a minister I'd resign immediately because I'm basically a twat who shouldn't be given power. And I'm still a better person to be in charge of stuff than she is.

    Oh, and take care on misreading me. All of the above, and my previous post, was about Dorries. Not "MPs" in general. I don't extrapolate from her to all the rest because she is almost uniquely and abrasively thick. There are one or two others I could name who are perhaps in the same ballpark but they are a minority. As a rule I have more faith in our MPs than most people do, and I think there are brilliant people in each party. Which makes the presence of Dorries all the more jarring. Like a dog turd on a croquet lawn.
    Winding people up is part of democracy. Every government does it. This lot are just more entertaining than normal. Why should this stop? It is what makes politics entertaining. This is actually one of Starmer' s problems, he is just too boring and sensible.
    I would actually like a government that gets on with running the country rather than winding the population up. Winding people up is not 'part of democracy'.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042

    One of my wife's more bizarre nights was going to a Diana Ross concert in LA. (Reluctantly - a friend took her.) She did a song - then her friend shouts out "the writer is here!" "Where? C'mon up girl!" says Diana.

    Mortified, my wife had to clamber past being back slapped by Berry Gordy and god knows what Motown royalty. Helped up on stage, she got a great big hug from Diana, who then asked her about the inspiration for writing it...

    Doesn't sound bizarre - Bizarre would be Diana Ross asking your wife to don a wig and ride around LA as a decoy Ross so that the real Diana could date Macauley Culkin in secret.

    It actually sounds wonderful and surely must have been a very sweet and massively proud moment for your good lady.

    When I have as many career achievements and starry stories to my name as you, you can bet your life I'll be name dropping all over PB, but falsely downplaying them makes them sound more awkward than they are. Charles was the worst; his name drops were excruciating sometimes.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    darkage said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    Farooq said:

    Roger said:

    Very impressive light show. In a country with this level of creativity who could have thought it a smart idea to make Nadine Dorries Minister of Culture?

    Give it a rest
    Why? She's a fucking minister, and she's thicker than the Jones section of Welsh phone book. We should be pointing this out every single hour she has any kind of power. There should be a siren going off in the centre of every city to remind us. Give it a rest? Yeah, when she's given a rest from being the first pantomime horse with two back ends to ever attend cabinet.
    I don't think that MP's are thick. Some slip through the net, but they are generally labour MP's. Certainly not Dorries. She is engaged in a performance designed to make you mad, and you all fall for it. Being a conservative in charge of culture, most people you deal with will just hate you from the outset and make your job impossible. The political opportunity is to present yourself as being on the side of the masses against these elites. But it is on a subject that the masses aren't really interested in. So you have to keep engaging in more and more extreme acts of publicity to have any impact. That is what she is doing.
    I know that Dorries is out to wind people up. I happen to think that such a goal is wholly inappropriate for a minister, and that's what winds me up.

    I know all this. Just because someone wants me to react in a particular way, doesn't mean I have to do the opposite. I'm making a judgement that I think is completely sound: that the great ship of state is soiled by even having someone like her on board. Am I triggered? You bet you're arse I'm triggered. Triggered and proud. Because I want the people who govern me to have better standards than the wankers like you and me on message boards. If I were a minister I'd resign immediately because I'm basically a twat who shouldn't be given power. And I'm still a better person to be in charge of stuff than she is.

    Oh, and take care on misreading me. All of the above, and my previous post, was about Dorries. Not "MPs" in general. I don't extrapolate from her to all the rest because she is almost uniquely and abrasively thick. There are one or two others I could name who are perhaps in the same ballpark but they are a minority. As a rule I have more faith in our MPs than most people do, and I think there are brilliant people in each party. Which makes the presence of Dorries all the more jarring. Like a dog turd on a croquet lawn.
    Winding people up is part of democracy. Every government does it. This lot are just more entertaining than normal. Why should this stop? It is what makes politics entertaining. This is actually one of Starmer' s problems, he is just too boring and sensible.
    I would actually like a government that gets on with running the country rather than winding the population up. Winding people up is not 'part of democracy'.
    Totally weird take by “darkage”.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    A predominant public broadcasting service. Wikipedia has a list.

    You can play the 'what do you mean by X?' game with anything, a lack of 100% precise definition agreed by everyone doesn't prevent general principles being sufficient, in the 'know it when I see it' sense.

    I don't really believe it is tricky to get a general understanding of what people mean by national/public service broadcaster. That's a tactic used for misdirection.
    I apologise if you think I'm doing this tactically or insincerely. I'm really not. My opinion about the BBC isn't set in stone, it's just where I currently alight on this issue. And to be perfectly honest I feel uncomfortable with some of my fellow travellers on this. There are people whom I agree with on this issue who I believe are out to vandalise the BBC for ideological reasons that I don't share. That concerns me, but I prefer to make my mind up for better reasons than "enemy's enemy".

    I accept that the BBC's funding model differentiates from ITV. I think the BBC also has some obligations that are not shared by ITV. But the first difference is the point in question, so cannot be justification for it, that would be begging the question. The second is something that I could easily see being preserved in some models (but not all). Am I missing a third strand. Or underestimating the contents of the second?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    The problem with paying for the BBC out of general taxation is that £3.75bn is a lot of money, and the temptation will always be to squeeze it in favour of hospitals and giveaways. A hypothecated tax works, but the licence fee is very visible and aggravating, so I think there's a way to raise the money with hypothecated taxes in a less visible way.

    For example, you could assign VAT revenue from broadband and subscription TV services to go to the BBC. One of the interesting consequences of this is that the BBC would have a financial interest in the future success of pay-TV services. Maybe you'd need to also give them the VAT revenue from advertising on commercial TV too, or from the sale of TVs, but I should think there would be a way to hypothecate roughly the same level of funding, and then abolish the licence fee.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    nico679 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
    I think the BBC is part of British life . The moments we all share as a nation are what the BBC does best . Perhaps I’m being overly sentimental.
    Do we need a license fee for that though? The BBC's existence doesn't depend on this one particular model. Perhaps its essence does, but perhaps not. And other countries have shared moments without TV license fees.
  • Labour have found something, I am not quite sure we know what it is yet. But this is not the empty Labour of 2015 or the losing Labour of 2019. This is something else.

    I maintain that Starmer has a much better chance of winning a majority than many think.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    nico679 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
    I think the BBC is part of British life . The moments we all share as a nation are what the BBC does best . Perhaps I’m being overly sentimental.
    Not at all, you're right, but why do we have to pay for their shitefest take on Poirot, or their mindnumbingly slow wokefest Around the World in 80 days? The absence of the profit motive means the BBC's output doesn't have to be entertaining, just as the NHS doesn't have to actually cure anyone.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,182

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    The problem with paying for the BBC out of general taxation is that £3.75bn is a lot of money, and the temptation will always be to squeeze it in favour of hospitals and giveaways. A hypothecated tax works, but the licence fee is very visible and aggravating, so I think there's a way to raise the money with hypothecated taxes in a less visible way.

    For example, you could assign VAT revenue from broadband and subscription TV services to go to the BBC. One of the interesting consequences of this is that the BBC would have a financial interest in the future success of pay-TV services. Maybe you'd need to also give them the VAT revenue from advertising on commercial TV too, or from the sale of TVs, but I should think there would be a way to hypothecate roughly the same level of funding, and then abolish the licence fee.
    A hypothecated tax should be visible and aggravating. It should be clear exactly what you're paying and why, so we can have this debate about whether it's worth it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
  • In an interesting way, I don't think that Green vote holds up in a GE, which means Labour improves on 2017 within MOE. So that implies at minimum a Hung Parliament, if not a slight swing from that election in the Red Wall when they held those seats.

    So to me that means we're in 270-300 seat territory at worst. Not bad for Keir "loser" Starmer in two years
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    You haven't shown any difference there.
    If we had a washing machine tax that went to funding Persil, and you needed to pay it even if you only wanted to use Daz, which part of this no longer applies:

    "It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the [Persil] doesn't change that."
  • Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    How does Wakefield poll compare to pre 2019 results? Is it reversion or a genuine improvement?

    It's similar to the result in 2001 and 1997.
    So landslide territory then, thought so
    Yes, except comparing by-election and general election results is usually a bit dodgy.
    Fair point.

    But could anyone have predicted a swing to the Tories in 2019 and then such a swing back to Labour three years later. I am not sure.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Reads to me like No 10 is desperate and in full meltdown panic as Monday's return to Westminster comes around.

    The more dirt they throw the more it is obvious we have a contest looming.
  • I still believe Johnson survives, calls a GE.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    Except the tax on cars is used to pay for the infrastructure cars need to work. The TV tax is used to pay for Eastenders.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    nico679 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
    I think the BBC is part of British life . The moments we all share as a nation are what the BBC does best . Perhaps I’m being overly sentimental.
    Not at all, you're right, but why do we have to pay for their shitefest take on Poirot, or their mindnumbingly slow wokefest Around the World in 80 days? The absence of the profit motive means the BBC's output doesn't have to be entertaining, just as the NHS doesn't have to actually cure anyone.
    And the BBC Trust is such a part of the BBC there is no accountability for public service either.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Aslan said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    Except the tax on cars is used to pay for the infrastructure cars need to work. The TV tax is used to pay for Eastenders.
    Sure, we can all point to items of government expenditure that we don't approve of. Funding the BBC is no different in that regard.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    You haven't shown any difference there.
    If we had a washing machine tax that went to funding Persil, and you needed to pay it even if you only wanted to use Daz, which part of this no longer applies:

    "It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the [Persil] doesn't change that."
    Well, okay, so your argument is that all government taxation is equally ridiculous and absurd. I don't that's a particularly helpful conclusion, and it doesn't make the licence fee any more or less ridiculous than any other tax.

    That's not to say that you might want to object to the licence fee on the grounds of being regressive, or causing a disproportionate amount of aggravation for the money it raises. But it's no more or less ridiculous than any other tax.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    That's not a District Line train!
  • pingping Posts: 3,724
    Lol @ the btl comments.

    DM readers aren’t having any of it!

    However, as I said at the time, I think Aaron made the wrong call. It was in neither his, nor his constituents interests to speak out. I thought it unlikely that Boris would be deposed - and even if he was(is), the replacement will be a candidate acceptable to the SE tories, serving their interests first and foremost.

    “Levelling up” will be ditched. The north abandoned.

    Then again, maybe he’s written his seat off for the next GE and just thought, fk it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    The difference is I am not taxed for a car if I don't own one.....try arguing car tax should be subsumed into general taxation. I dont have a tv and cant receive there over the air broadcasts but you are arguing I should have to pay for something I currently dont have to
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,530
    edited June 2022
    Aslan said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    Except the tax on cars is used to pay for the infrastructure cars need to work. The TV tax is used to pay for Eastenders.
    You’re not going to like everything the BBC produces . It’s impossible . Surely there must be things on it you like .
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Pagan2 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    The difference is I am not taxed for a car if I don't own one.....try arguing car tax should be subsumed into general taxation. I dont have a tv and cant receive there over the air broadcasts but you are arguing I should have to pay for something I currently dont have to
    I'm not arguing for paying for the BBC out of general taxation - I suggested paying for it out of taxation that already exists on pay-TV services, and similar.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629

    Pagan2 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    The difference is I am not taxed for a car if I don't own one.....try arguing car tax should be subsumed into general taxation. I dont have a tv and cant receive there over the air broadcasts but you are arguing I should have to pay for something I currently dont have to
    I'm not arguing for paying for the BBC out of general taxation - I suggested paying for it out of taxation that already exists on pay-TV services, and similar.
    Point is....we have a lot of essential stuff to spend tax on and we should be fully funding....bbc doesn't even make it into the nice to have stuff at a high level because without it we would still have itv and channel 5 and sky all of whom do just as much news and documentaries
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Irish approval ratings:

    https://twitter.com/NextIrishGE/status/1533212824599769090

    Poll - Ireland Thinks / Sunday Independent

    Approval Ratings:

    Queen Elizabeth II: 50%
    McDonald (SF): 45%
    Martin (FF): 44%
    Varadkar (FG): 38%
    Ryan (GP): 21%
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    Irish approval ratings:

    https://twitter.com/NextIrishGE/status/1533212824599769090

    Poll - Ireland Thinks / Sunday Independent

    Approval Ratings:

    Queen Elizabeth II: 50%
    McDonald (SF): 45%
    Martin (FF): 44%
    Varadkar (FG): 38%
    Ryan (GP): 21%

    Bono not on the list?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    ping said:

    Lol @ the btl comments.

    DM readers aren’t having any of it!

    However, as I said at the time, I think Aaron made the wrong call. It was in neither his, nor his constituents interests to speak out. I thought it unlikely that Boris would be deposed - and even if he was(is), the replacement will be a candidate acceptable to the SE tories, serving their interests first and foremost.

    “Levelling up” will be ditched. The north abandoned.

    Then again, maybe he’s written his seat off for the next GE and just thought, fk it.
    iirc, Aaron did it because he was so bloody angry because he had close family who personally missed a funeral while Johnson was on the lash, raising his glass to departing staff in "essential work".

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    I still believe Johnson survives, calls a GE.

    Feck, that would be funny.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629

    I still believe Johnson survives, calls a GE.

    Feck, that would be funny.
    Only if he doesnt get reelected with a majority
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,395
    I would trust the BBC more, or perhaps I should say, distrust them less, if they were to release the Balen report.

    (I imgine some commenters here could make a pretty good guess at what they are hiding.)
  • Aslan said:

    nico679 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
    I think the BBC is part of British life . The moments we all share as a nation are what the BBC does best . Perhaps I’m being overly sentimental.
    Not at all, you're right, but why do we have to pay for their shitefest take on Poirot, or their mindnumbingly slow wokefest Around the World in 80 days? The absence of the profit motive means the BBC's output doesn't have to be entertaining, just as the NHS doesn't have to actually cure anyone.
    And the BBC Trust is such a part of the BBC there is no accountability for public service either.
    The BBC Trust hasn't existed for five years. Regulated by Ofcom since 2017.
  • Pagan2 said:

    I still believe Johnson survives, calls a GE.

    Feck, that would be funny.
    Only if he doesnt get reelected with a majority
    Can very much see the logic that Johnson calls a GE. If he wins a confidence vote, but only narrowly, the 'done thing' would be for anyone in that position to resign - but he isn't anyone. Going to the country, and hoping his electoral record actually stands up to the challenge of Starmer - could be his best bet to actually recover his long-term position - he might have a smaller majority but a more secure position, as unlikely as that seems right now.

    Meanwhile, imagine if Starmer and Rayner are forced to resign over Beergate. Who do Labour put forward as an immediate caretaker for the GE (I know Purdah etc might mean this timeline doesn't happen like this exactly). Johnson could exploit the chaos.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's strange to think Johnson could be out as Tory leader within 96 hours.

    And Starmer too in a month or so.
    We live in interesting.times. At my age I'd appreciate a rest.
    Starmer? He seems pretty safe for the moment.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Aslan said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    Except the tax on cars is used to pay for the infrastructure cars need to work. The TV tax is used to pay for Eastenders.
    Sure, we can all point to items of government expenditure that we don't approve of. Funding the BBC is no different in that regard.
    The difference is most of them have accountability to parliament in their choices via ministerial responsibility.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:


    Actually +8 for Labour is pretty abysmal. This is pointing to a poor mid term by election for Labour if they take the seat on basis of stay at home till general election Tory votes, not getting much more than 8% from switchers themselves.

    Tell me I’m wrong.

    But without switchers, without much improvement in labours vote from last time, it’s not painting a convincing red wall picture for Labour, as indeed the locals were a mixed bag across the red wall.

    The key number is Conservative down 18. As we saw in the locals and mirrored in Australia, the collapse of the centre-right isn't being matched by a consequent rise in the centre-left but by disillusioned voters seeking out other alternatives. The 13% swing will still look good for Labour if that's what happened.

    I'm increasingly of the view the fragmentation of the Conservative vote will, even under FPTP, help any other party or independent who can establish themselves as the clear alternative.

    The truth is, Labor in Australia suffered similar loss of votes to non establishment places, the 1pp Lab share was below every poll except the one we were thinking was a rough poll but turned out with lowest labour share and government win by 3% on 1pp most accurate. The same thing happening in France, in extreme way. So to that extent I am agreeing with you, lost votes for Tories hurt them, tactical voting hurts them - also as a by product, those calling for labour double digit or 20% polling leads as necessary are wrong in this new era of diverse polling.

    However, where I think you are wrong is two fold. Firstly, this is a labour/Tory battleground seat, bellwether, not much presence from other parties to make a difference - in the Aussie comparison Wakefield would not be a teal win helpful for Labour, it would be a Lab target indicative of where we are today on their battlefield for seat total for themself!

    Which supports me in what I am saying, do we measure what course labour are on this mid term by the number of Tory’s staying at home handing labour seat, or by the % the Lab share grows due to switching? I think the latter, gap between parties would disappoint me here if I was a leader here, if our own stock isn’t rising the gap is merely Boris unpopularity. Why. Because it would give me no assurance I’m on course.

    Stay at home vote is a different thing than switched vote, it’s softer, change of Tory leader the softer stay at home vote could swing back. To get excited about gap back to a collapsed Tory share would be immature pesodolphinolgy here if the truth is a huge soft vote prone to swingback.
    To what extent it is disillusion with Boris or the Tories remains the big question.
    Not sure. But I doubt simply changing the leader without altering the attitude, tone or addressing the absence of any discernible direction or coherent plan is quite a magic bullet.
    we could be surprised how much of a magic bullet removing the Boris shaped anchor now is in places like Tivi and the red wall and the opinion polls - that’s our PB job isn’t it, the pseudoasophagusology to look at the result from Wakefield and say “Nah. Far too much anti Boris hand sitting, not enough labour votes on - this wins soft as cream to Tory leader change.”

    Alternatively, even with a smaller gap between parties, clear evidence of Con to Lab support lifting the Labour share would leave us more assured Labour could be making red wall recovery regardless of change of leader.

    Colour me unconvinced Labour winning Wakefield means much at all, I’ll explain why, correct me where I am wrong.

    Firstly, what was so special about Boris winning the red wall? I would answer zilch, absolutely nothing. Someone else could be associated with listening to these globalisation ravaged communities for the first time in decades, someone else could promise them levelling up, and achieve that same result as Boris, it wasn’t him but the message, the not taking you for granted but levelling you up with influx of investment flipped the votes from Labour - this is why these red wall communities voted for both Brexit and Boris - not for Boris, but for hope, for change.

    If I am right, how do Labour fight back? The answers obvious, they need to match the promises of investment, they need to offer the same hope. They need to offer change they didn’t deliver in the past.

    Have Labour been doing this? Nope.

    Why should you win back the red wall from Tories by doing nothing?

    Replacing the ridiculous Johnson, the Tory’s still have the red wall vote - it’s not personal to Johnson, if it’s based on levelling up investment and hope for better future, it’s personal to Brexit. If Labour continue with their do nothing approach this will take years to unwind itself.
    One important caveat, though.

    In 2019, there wasn't a Green candidate in Wakefield; this poll puts the Greens on 8 % this time round. One picture of the churn is a Con to Lab swing of about 16 points, with Labour then dropping 8 points to the Greens further left.

    It's almost certainly not as neat as that, but it highlights the huge impact local factors can have.

    (It's interesting to speculate what Red Wall Voters want; given that they tend to be older and comfortably off- sterotypically retired and with the mortgage on their Right to Buy houses paid off- is it more change, less change or reversed change that will appeal most?)
    Bloody good reply 👍🏻
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    nico679 said:

    Aslan said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    Being forced to pay the BBC for owning a TV is as ridiculous as being forced to pay Persil for owning a washing machine.
    It really isn't. It's simply a tax that the government charges you for doing something, in exactly the same way as the government charges you a tax for owning most types of car. That the government hypothecates all the revenue from this tax to spending on the BBC doesn't change that.
    Except the tax on cars is used to pay for the infrastructure cars need to work. The TV tax is used to pay for Eastenders.
    You’re not going to like everything the BBC produces . It’s impossible . Surely there must be things on it you like .
    I used to love This Week and The Sunday Politics. Then they got cancelled because... actually, I have no idea why they were cancelled. I doubt they rated well, but This Week certainly had a loyal following.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    New thread.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    nico679 said:

    The BBC will have spent god knows how many thousands of hours organizing the outside broadcasts for this weekend's events.

    I know Nadine hates them, but does the average tory member really want the Beeb to be reduced to the point that they will not be able to do this kind of national event any more?

    I don't think so. I suspect the Beeb is more popular amongst tory members than wider population.

    Reshuffle her out.

    The BBC has always been there for these national events and people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone. No 10 is actively trying to destroy it . I hope this becomes an election issue given those who love the beeb the most also tend to be strongly represented in the over 65s which just happen to be more likely to vote Tory .

    Make no mistake if the BBC becomes a subscription service that will be the end of it . All those cheering on the demise of the BBC should see the state of national broadcasters in other countries.

    The clueless fxcking clown Dorries is on a vendetta against any organization that doesn’t worship at the altar of The Dear Leader!
    I think the answer is to get rid of the licence fee and pay for the BBC out of general taxation. It won't stop the haters from hating but it will undermine a lot of the argument about people being forced to pay a specific fee for something they don't use. Lots of people pay for things they never use via general taxation. But it is the impression of being forced to pay a specific fee for something they either do not use or do not agree with that irks some people.

    The subscription route is, I agree with you, not practical or warranted for a national broadcaster.

    And yes Dorries should be dropped down a well. But that is not specifically because of the BBC. Just a general principle.
    Do we really need a "national" broadcaster?
    I mean, we have more than one. Why do we need one on the BBC model?

    I have never been able to get my head around the fact that the BBC's funding model is essentially parasitic on other broadcast television. To watch ITV you have to pay the BBC. There's no world in which that makes sense to me.
    I understand the history of it and I can see why it probably was fine back in the day, but the landscape has moved and the old way of doing this no longer makes sense.

    How (and whether) we fix it depends on the answer to the question of what the BBC is "for".
    I think it is not likely sustainable in its current form, it aggrieves too many and is not supported enough for that. I do think if we just give up on the idea of a national broadcaster however we will come to regret it. I think general taxation and focused on news and national events would pass muster with most, I think the point about a specific fee for something many won't use is a good one.
    But can you even tell me what you mean by "national broadcaster". That seems to be a key component of this discussion, and I really don't get what it means.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster and there’s an entire literature on what that means.
    Even my first glance at what this means: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/public-service-broadcasting tells me that ITV, C4, C5, S4C are all also public service broadcasters. There're a few different models in there.

    But perhaps what i'm after is an understanding of what people who advocated for the BBC to be kept as is to tell me what they think will be lost by changing the model.
    Precisely, ITV and C4 are public service broadcaster and they raise all their revenue privately. ITV is privately owned too and C4 shortly will be and they'll still be public service broadcasters.

    If it were up to me I'd liberate the BBC from the Licence Free and make the BBC Trust a trust that owns and operates the BBC, a bit like the National Trust, and let it raise revenue however it chooses. Whether that be commercials, or subscription, or donations, or any other model - I don't see why the state should choose, let the BBC choose for itself how it wants to raise money, so long as any money going to it is because the individual giving the money has willingly chosen to give the money over unlike now.
This discussion has been closed.