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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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
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 .
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
Comments
So to me that means we're in 270-300 seat territory at worst. Not bad for Keir "loser" Starmer in two years
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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10885361/Boris-Johnson-loyalists-try-identify-pathetic-childish-rebel-MPs.html
The more dirt they throw the more it is obvious we have a contest looming.
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.
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.
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%
(I imgine some commenters here could make a pretty good guess at what they are hiding.)
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.
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.