Crunch time for @BorisJohnson…@JasmineCC_95 & @GeorgeWParker battling Tory media blackout ahead of #Tiverton by-election…lovely stuff from ground here… and tough reading for CCHQ as Johnson fav rating hits -42 with 80% saying he lied over #Partygate
"One man in Tiverton’s Fore Street, studying the posters for forthcoming films at the town’s Tivoli cinema, admits sheepishly to being a local Tory councillor, before whispering conspiratorially: “You’re wasting your time, mate. We’ve been told to refer all media inquiries to the press office.” It is not exactly a sign of a party brimming with self-confidence. "
They're hiding their candidate away. No media. No exposure. Can't risk the pack asking about the boss. And this is the problem for all Tory candidates. If you run wearing a blue rosette you run representing Boris Johnson's Conservative party. You run representing lies. Criminality. Malfeasance. Corruption. They may not be your personal values, but they are the values you are propmoting.
No wonder the candidate won't speak to the media.
This is what the PM will do, if he survives the year.
1) Stage managed factory visits to Tory owned businesses with strict silence from the workers.
2) PM wearing lab coat/high-viz jacket, staring with incomprehension at some mundane task.
3) Colouring with primary school children, secondary school pupils far too risky.
We've been here before. May went on the campaign trail with carefully stage-managed media appearances. Close sets, supporters, signs. We always get to see the reverse angle where there's hardly anyone there and get leaks from the workforce who describe how awkward it was.
Johnson is the three mile island event for this phase of the Tory party. The runaway nuclear reactor who once provided light and heat to hard to reach places has turned into a runaway. They either dump the core and save themselves, or they say "he once provided light and heat, lets trust him not to melt through the floor".
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment.
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Good morning everyone. I hope Ms Heathener enjoyed her trip to the Test Match yesterday.
On topic, trust is like virginity; once lost you can't get it back. And I think it's fortunate in the way for the PM that he's lost public trust at this time, because if we hadn't been sidetracked with the Jubilee he'll be even more trouble.
I suspect he'll survive the vote of confidence, but not by much. Lower end of 50-100.
Thanks OKC. We had a wonderful day. A thrilling day of test cricket which seemed to have everything.
Sounds like it was a cracking day, very jealous, although I spent the day playing (and winning) a lower league match. Lots of debate about ticket prices this year. Did you consider it value for money?
Yes but the prices were steep and we were very lucky to have a full and exciting day.
I think they should offer some cheaper tickets personally. Do you?
It’s a lot of money, and puts me off, even though I earn £50k a year (so on the low side for pb😀). For people on low incomes it must be unattainable. I would like to see targeted free/cheap tickets to encourage people outside of the standard test crowd, although I think that’s part of the rationale for the hundred. On the other hand, this is the highest level of the game, and on a good day you are getting 7 hours of entertainment, so even at £150 it’s about £20 an hour.
I hadn't been paying attention, what bible reading did Boris do?
Philippians 4;8.
It includes the words 'Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable … think about these things.'
In fairness given there's a lot of moralising in holy books he was set up for a fail with a lot of passages. Maybe he could have requested something spicier. Song of Solomon?
I hadn't been paying attention, what bible reading did Boris do?
Philippians 4;8.
It includes the words 'Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable … think about these things.'
In fairness given there's a lot of moralising in holy books he was set up for a fail with a lot of passages. Maybe he could have requested something spicier. Song of Solomon?
If she'd have asked him to read that, there'd have been a Republic in twelve hours:
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth— for your love is more delightful than wine. 3 Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the young women love you! 4 Take me away with you—let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers.
It was truly shocking coming on here and seeing how many people here where blaming LFC fans for what was going on when it was abundantly clear the organisers and authorities had screwed it up.
I now know of many people who got tickets through legitimate channels who were wrongly told that their tickets were "fake". It was a f**k-up of monumental proportions by the organisers.
Surely it is easier to blame the french than the scousers? It should come naturally to us after a millennia of rivalry and war.
Crunch time for @BorisJohnson…@JasmineCC_95 & @GeorgeWParker battling Tory media blackout ahead of #Tiverton by-election…lovely stuff from ground here… and tough reading for CCHQ as Johnson fav rating hits -42 with 80% saying he lied over #Partygate
"One man in Tiverton’s Fore Street, studying the posters for forthcoming films at the town’s Tivoli cinema, admits sheepishly to being a local Tory councillor, before whispering conspiratorially: “You’re wasting your time, mate. We’ve been told to refer all media inquiries to the press office.” It is not exactly a sign of a party brimming with self-confidence. "
They're hiding their candidate away. No media. No exposure. Can't risk the pack asking about the boss. And this is the problem for all Tory candidates. If you run wearing a blue rosette you run representing Boris Johnson's Conservative party. You run representing lies. Criminality. Malfeasance. Corruption. They may not be your personal values, but they are the values you are propmoting.
No wonder the candidate won't speak to the media.
This is what the PM will do, if he survives the year.
1) Stage managed factory visits to Tory owned businesses with strict silence from the workers.
2) PM wearing lab coat/high-viz jacket, staring with incomprehension at some mundane task.
3) Colouring with primary school children, secondary school pupils far too risky.
We've been here before. May went on the campaign trail with carefully stage-managed media appearances. Close sets, supporters, signs. We always get to see the reverse angle where there's hardly anyone there and get leaks from the workforce who describe how awkward it was.
Johnson is the three mile island event for this phase of the Tory party. The runaway nuclear reactor who once provided light and heat to hard to reach places has turned into a runaway. They either dump the core and save themselves, or they say "he once provided light and heat, lets trust him not to melt through the floor".
I hadn't been paying attention, what bible reading did Boris do?
Philippians 4;8.
It includes the words 'Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable … think about these things.'
Someone- and I like to think it's Her Maj- knows what they're doing.
If somehow Johnson does go, the new leader needs to resolve CoL and defend 13 years of failure. They will not get the "I am not a Tory and actually a new party" thing that Johnson got, voters will not be duped twice.
Crunch time for @BorisJohnson…@JasmineCC_95 & @GeorgeWParker battling Tory media blackout ahead of #Tiverton by-election…lovely stuff from ground here… and tough reading for CCHQ as Johnson fav rating hits -42 with 80% saying he lied over #Partygate
"One man in Tiverton’s Fore Street, studying the posters for forthcoming films at the town’s Tivoli cinema, admits sheepishly to being a local Tory councillor, before whispering conspiratorially: “You’re wasting your time, mate. We’ve been told to refer all media inquiries to the press office.” It is not exactly a sign of a party brimming with self-confidence. "
They're hiding their candidate away. No media. No exposure. Can't risk the pack asking about the boss. And this is the problem for all Tory candidates. If you run wearing a blue rosette you run representing Boris Johnson's Conservative party. You run representing lies. Criminality. Malfeasance. Corruption. They may not be your personal values, but they are the values you are propmoting.
No wonder the candidate won't speak to the media.
This is what the PM will do, if he survives the year.
1) Stage managed factory visits to Tory owned businesses with strict silence from the workers.
2) PM wearing lab coat/high-viz jacket, staring with incomprehension at some mundane task.
3) Colouring with primary school children, secondary school pupils far too risky.
Would have to be nursery children I think. My year 4 daughter came home the other day and gave me a thorough and well-argued account of Boris Johnson's malfeasance, presumably gleaned from Newsround and discussion with friends. Primary school kids would be a very tough crowd for him.
Not to mention that Boris's plan for 40 new hospitals was at best 10 new hospitals, 10 reopened wards and 20 new bike racks in hospital car parks. Laser-like focus on 40 new hospitals when there are not 40 new hospitals merely emphasises Boris is a bullshitter. Laser-like focus on more staff risks handing the initiative to Jeremy Hunt who, coincidentally, published a book on the NHS just a week or two back. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/22/zero-by-jeremy-hunt-review-this-is-going-to-hurt
I think the King's Lynn one is a proper hospital. Sounds like it is sorely needed too:
"One of the hospitals waiting for news is the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which is having to use 1,500 steel and timber supports to hold up its roof in 56 separate areas. The hospital is due to reach the end of its life in 2030 and its controlling trust has asked for £862 million to rebuild it."
He can call our refurbished psychiatric block "The Boris Johnson Hospital and All Night Disco" for all I care, but without it those waiting lists will be longer rather than shorter.
No marginal constituencies nearby may well be our achillies heel to the project.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
The idea that the license fee is a sacred institution is a strange one.
The original plan was for subscription (for TV), but the technology of the time (late 50s) wasn’t up to encryption that wasn’t trivially breakable. See David Kahn’s “The Codebreakers” - a brilliant history of cryptography, very readable for the layman…
There are 2 possible paths now -
- extend the license fee to anything that can show video. - Some kind of subscription model.
Incidentally, within a decade or so broadcast TV will be shutdown and the wavelengths will be auctioned off. TV will move entirely to the internet.
The runaway success of Netflix shows what can be done - they are only running into trouble over content, now.
If the BBC had really grasped this nettle a long time ago, the worldwide subscription fees would pay for the BBC and then some. Just the subscriptions from the USA would do that, probably.
Imagine that as a pitch - “The BBC. Totally independent of government, because it is paid for entirely by overseas subscriptions. Free in the U.K.”
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I think the Queen is professional enough at her role that she won't have said to anyone (except maybe Prince Philip when he was alive) what she privately thinks of any serving PM.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment.
So: 1. Not a new hospital 2. Not even a new building 3. Critical to getting waiting lists down and people taken out of chronic pain which we all remember is why we're paying more taxes. Which have been taken from us but the facility not getting the go-ahead.
The new leader will have to do a lot of repositioning on stuff like this. An honest conversation about what can be built and at what cost in what time. So if Sunak wins the job he will blame Boris. If it isn't Sunak then expect Sunak to get the sack and the new leader to blame both of them.
if we hadn't been sidetracked with the Jubilee he'll be even more trouble.
I thought the same beforehand but, and this may be pure wishful thinking, I have a real sense that the country is moving on from Boris. It's the spontaneous outbursts: the booing, the bible reading that the palace selected for him, LeeMack, the extraordinary performances last night which were so at variance with the current tory trajectory, the fact that we have focused on the Queen instead of a grubby PM.
I just have this sense that there's a 'screw Boris' attitude. You can feel it almost across the board.
Except Nadine Dorries, obvs.
I agree and I think that the Jubilee rather than being a distraction will be the end of him (well I hope).
If you were a wavering Tory MP and you’ve read or seen the booing at St Paul’s and the general stories in the press - Carrie wearing her Boris Blocking hats, he’s a scruffy fool, Lee Mack, restaurant boos etc I think you would realise that the race is run, the game is over and the magic has worn off and the scales have fallen from the British public’s eyes.
You would also compare him to the Royals on display where, love ‘em or loathe ‘em, they’ve been dignified, smart and still fun and connecting with the public without being the modern equivalent of Roland the Farter who like Boris was a one trick pony Jester.
So I hope every Tory MP if they step outside their bubble in some cases but others who live a vaguely normal life will conclude that it’s time to remove Boris. Some won’t whatever he has done but enough will.
I agree with all that.
The vivid contrast between the grubby, sleazy operation at No. 10 and the good-natured, patriotic and dignified Jubilee festivities is very sharp and may well be noticed. And I'm no monarchist.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
It was truly shocking coming on here and seeing how many people here where blaming LFC fans for what was going on when it was abundantly clear the organisers and authorities had screwed it up.
I now know of many people who got tickets through legitimate channels who were wrongly told that their tickets were "fake". It was a f**k-up of monumental proportions by the organisers.
The French police behaved like the French police. The riot police are like that, but squared. Given U.K. demographics, a number of Liverpool supporters were probably guilty of wearing loud shirts in built up areas and being in possession of offensive wives.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
If somehow Johnson does go, the new leader needs to resolve CoL and defend 13 years of failure. They will not get the "I am not a Tory and actually a new party" thing that Johnson got, voters will not be duped twice.
Three times.
May did quite a lot to distance herself from the Cameron government.
And whilst the pain can be distributed differently, some sort of Cost of Living Crisis is inevitable.
"Privately, Johnson’s own numbers are quite a bit worse. One party official who has seen Conservative Campaign Headquarters’ internal polling says the prime minister’s favourability rating is minus 35 per cent. Among women aged 35 to 54, a key demographic, it’s minus 70 per cent."
Cue HY telling us that women in their 50s are real Conservatives anyway and the party never had their support and doesn't need them anyway.
Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, will count the letters, which can also be submitted by email and WhatsApp, when parliament returns on Monday morning. If they total 54 or more, he will contact the prime minister. Officers of the 1922 executive have already pencilled in Wednesday as the day for the leadership vote. To oust the prime minister the rebels need to muster 180 votes against Johnson. Another backbench number cruncher has calculated that up to 190 Tory MPs could vote against him.
A former cabinet minister said: “It’s 55 per cent that it happens on Monday or Tuesday. It’s 80 per cent there’s a vote after the two by-elections [on June 23].” Conservative high command is braced for the loss of both Tiverton & Honiton, where the Liberal Democrats are threatening a Tory majority of 24,000, and Wakefield, a “red wall” seat won from Labour in 2019.
Labour’s less-than-stellar performance in the red wall in the local elections has, however, calmed the nerves of Tory MPs in the 2019 intake and has left many hopeful of regaining Wakefield in a general election.
A poll by JL Partners, shatters that narrative. It puts Labour 20 points clear of the Conservatives in Wakefield and shows that voters are blaming Johnson. Tory internal polling also suggests that a “disastrous” loss is on the cards.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment.
So: 1. Not a new hospital 2. Not even a new building 3. Critical to getting waiting lists down and people taken out of chronic pain which we all remember is why we're paying more taxes. Which have been taken from us but the facility not getting the go-ahead.
The new leader will have to do a lot of repositioning on stuff like this. An honest conversation about what can be built and at what cost in what time. So if Sunak wins the job he will blame Boris. If it isn't Sunak then expect Sunak to get the sack and the new leader to blame both of them.
To be fair the proposed building conversion is quite a major project. The structure is fairly typical shoddy 1960's and not much better than the King's Lynn one in terms of condition.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
It could but, first, the NHS will still have to pay, and second, doctors in private hospitals are invariably doctors in NHS hospitals during the day. This is just expensive, or well-remunerated, overtime. There is no completely separate private sector.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
It was more likely Welby picked the readings. And that would accord with his very publicly stated views of Johnson.
What it also says is how casual and lazy Johnson is. On the rare occasions I am asked to read the lesson, I read it through first. He clearly didn't think to.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
I personally doubt Charles will be as interventionist as people think. He's watched his mother in the role for decades, and whilst things evolve and he cannot simply copy her approach wholesale, he's not foolish enough to abandon all the lessons of her reign.
So I think he will be cautious, and probably speak through William who will be able to get away with more.
Not to mention that Boris's plan for 40 new hospitals was at best 10 new hospitals, 10 reopened wards and 20 new bike racks in hospital car parks. Laser-like focus on 40 new hospitals when there are not 40 new hospitals merely emphasises Boris is a bullshitter. Laser-like focus on more staff risks handing the initiative to Jeremy Hunt who, coincidentally, published a book on the NHS just a week or two back. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/22/zero-by-jeremy-hunt-review-this-is-going-to-hurt
I think the King's Lynn one is a proper hospital. Sounds like it is sorely needed too:
"One of the hospitals waiting for news is the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which is having to use 1,500 steel and timber supports to hold up its roof in 56 separate areas. The hospital is due to reach the end of its life in 2030 and its controlling trust has asked for £862 million to rebuild it."
He can call our refurbished psychiatric block "The Boris Johnson Hospital and All Night Disco" for all I care, but without it those waiting lists will be longer rather than shorter.
No marginal constituencies nearby may well be our achillies heel to the project.
Remember all of the denouncements from HY. Non-Tories "do not matter" and "can be ignored". Instead of ruling for the whole country - as all government's are mandated to do - this one simply thinks you can go to hell. You don't vote Tory so you can all suffer in pain.
"Privately, Johnson’s own numbers are quite a bit worse. One party official who has seen Conservative Campaign Headquarters’ internal polling says the prime minister’s favourability rating is minus 35 per cent. Among women aged 35 to 54, a key demographic, it’s minus 70 per cent."
Cue HY telling us that women in their 50s are real Conservatives anyway and the party never had their support and doesn't need them anyway.
I wonder if Boris is told any of this stuff. We know relations between leaders and party machines can be dreadful, look at Corbyn, and he seems the sort to punish the conveyor of bad news.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment.
So: 1. Not a new hospital 2. Not even a new building 3. Critical to getting waiting lists down and people taken out of chronic pain which we all remember is why we're paying more taxes. Which have been taken from us but the facility not getting the go-ahead.
The new leader will have to do a lot of repositioning on stuff like this. An honest conversation about what can be built and at what cost in what time. So if Sunak wins the job he will blame Boris. If it isn't Sunak then expect Sunak to get the sack and the new leader to blame both of them.
To be fair the proposed building conversion is quite a major project. The structure is fairly typical shoddy 1960's and not much better than the King's Lynn one in terms of condition.
Perhaps a fair way of deciding if it is a new building is this -
If you take a domestic dwelling and reduce it to just front and side walls, all floors and roof ripped out, and rebuilt, it is classed as a new dwelling for VAT purposes.
Not far from where I live, they’ve ripped a commercial building back to the concrete frame (everything else, including services removed), to convert it to tower of flats. I believe that was classed, for planning purposes as new construction.
Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, will count the letters, which can also be submitted by email and WhatsApp, when parliament returns on Monday morning. If they total 54 or more, he will contact the prime minister. Officers of the 1922 executive have already pencilled in Wednesday as the day for the leadership vote. To oust the prime minister the rebels need to muster 180 votes against Johnson. Another backbench number cruncher has calculated that up to 190 Tory MPs could vote against him.
A former cabinet minister said: “It’s 55 per cent that it happens on Monday or Tuesday. It’s 80 per cent there’s a vote after the two by-elections [on June 23].” Conservative high command is braced for the loss of both Tiverton & Honiton, where the Liberal Democrats are threatening a Tory majority of 24,000, and Wakefield, a “red wall” seat won from Labour in 2019.
Labour’s less-than-stellar performance in the red wall in the local elections has, however, calmed the nerves of Tory MPs in the 2019 intake and has left many hopeful of regaining Wakefield in a general election.
A poll by JL Partners, shatters that narrative. It puts Labour 20 points clear of the Conservatives in Wakefield and shows that voters are blaming Johnson. Tory internal polling also suggests that a “disastrous” loss is on the cards.
Is anyone else vaguely uncomfortable that letters to SGB can be submitted by WhatsApp? I trust the platform to arrange inconsequential social events or to send family photos but I'm not sure how I feel about it being used to send things of major constitutional importance. I don't think work would look on it with approval if I was sending official communications using WhatsApp. I may be being a dinosaur here - wouldn't necessarily be the first time.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
The quote is more about Tina Brown saying ‘look at me, I’m relevant’
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
It could but, first, the NHS will still have to pay, and second, doctors in private hospitals are invariably doctors in NHS hospitals during the day. This is just expensive, or well-remunerated, overtime. There is no completely separate private sector.
Very true! But as specialists are essentially private contractors with the NHS as one of their clients, time to fill out their time. IIRC the NHS negotiated very good rates with the likes of BUPA to do 10k cataract operations (other lengthy waiting lists are available). Cheaper and more effective than trying to speed up the NHS.
It was truly shocking coming on here and seeing how many people here where blaming LFC fans for what was going on when it was abundantly clear the organisers and authorities had screwed it up.
I now know of many people who got tickets through legitimate channels who were wrongly told that their tickets were "fake". It was a f**k-up of monumental proportions by the organisers.
Surely it is easier to blame the french than the scousers? It should come naturally to us after a millennia of rivalry and war.
Not just the French though but UEFA too. And authority has its advantages. I do wonder if the truth would have become so apparent so quickly if it weren't for social media?
Good morning everyone. I hope Ms Heathener enjoyed her trip to the Test Match yesterday.
On topic, trust is like virginity; once lost you can't get it back. And I think it's fortunate in the way for the PM that he's lost public trust at this time, because if we hadn't been sidetracked with the Jubilee he'll be even more trouble.
I suspect he'll survive the vote of confidence, but not by much. Lower end of 50-100.
Thanks OKC. We had a wonderful day. A thrilling day of test cricket which seemed to have everything.
I'm looking forward with trepidation to this morning, but as there's an Essex boy there (Foakes is from Clacton) all should be well!
It must be one hell of a lot drier in the South if you're expecting any play. The only ducks you'll get round here right now would be paddling on the covers!
Gloomy and overcast here, but not raining. (?Yet) Forecast isn't good, though.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
Not to mention that Boris's plan for 40 new hospitals was at best 10 new hospitals, 10 reopened wards and 20 new bike racks in hospital car parks. Laser-like focus on 40 new hospitals when there are not 40 new hospitals merely emphasises Boris is a bullshitter. Laser-like focus on more staff risks handing the initiative to Jeremy Hunt who, coincidentally, published a book on the NHS just a week or two back. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/22/zero-by-jeremy-hunt-review-this-is-going-to-hurt
I think the King's Lynn one is a proper hospital. Sounds like it is sorely needed too:
"One of the hospitals waiting for news is the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which is having to use 1,500 steel and timber supports to hold up its roof in 56 separate areas. The hospital is due to reach the end of its life in 2030 and its controlling trust has asked for £862 million to rebuild it."
He can call our refurbished psychiatric block "The Boris Johnson Hospital and All Night Disco" for all I care, but without it those waiting lists will be longer rather than shorter.
No marginal constituencies nearby may well be our achillies heel to the project.
You don't vote Tory so you can all suffer in pain.
That was their slogan in 97 wasnt it? Bold, I'll give them that.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, will count the letters, which can also be submitted by email and WhatsApp, when parliament returns on Monday morning.
Sir Graham of, course, has no notion of exactly how many letters there are right now. Presumably he has to get two of his office team with shoes and socks off to count up to 60.
Sounds like it happened some time ago as his son no longer works there.
I loathe the mendacious tub of lard as much as the next person, but booing and jeering at an off duty PM is not OK. People should be able to lunch in peace and privacy. On official business it is fair game.
I've thought about this a fair bit. I'm not sure there is such a thing as an off duty PM. That said, it is not going to encourage decent people to stand for office - let alone aspiring to high office.
On balance, however, he's got this far in his appalling premiership without reaching the "being booed at your dining table" stage, so the public does show restraint under normal circumstances. He's past a tipping point where public vilification feels acceptable to ordinary people and that should probably be considered by Tory Party managers.
People don't boo decent people, they are booing the fat lying crooked chancer for a reason.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Is Tom Newton Dunn a real person or is he played by Steve Coogan?
Good question but the MP quoted is someone else. You can read the whole article from the given link.
And here is a small chunk. FWIW I think his maths is out by about a fortnight.
"Countering that is the argument reinforced by a big date next week. A week today, June 12, marks the exact midpoint of this parliament, when the date by which the next general election must be held is as far away as the last one."
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
"Privately, Johnson’s own numbers are quite a bit worse. One party official who has seen Conservative Campaign Headquarters’ internal polling says the prime minister’s favourability rating is minus 35 per cent. Among women aged 35 to 54, a key demographic, it’s minus 70 per cent."
Cue HY telling us that women in their 50s are real Conservatives anyway and the party never had their support and doesn't need them anyway.
I wonder if Boris is told any of this stuff. We know relations between leaders and party machines can be dreadful, look at Corbyn, and he seems the sort to punish the conveyor of bad news.
There is a difference. Corbyn and his cabal saw the Labour MPs as the true enemy. They simply didn't care what red Tory MPs claimed red Tory voters were saying. Boris is supposedly a populist, the Big Dog with the mad hair that everyone loves. And I'm pretty sure his MPs are getting the message across - the ones who are't lickspittle crawlers anyway. He wants to be loved and will be thinking "how do I get loved again" - hence red meat like crowns on pint glasses. You know, the important stuff.
Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, will count the letters, which can also be submitted by email and WhatsApp, when parliament returns on Monday morning. If they total 54 or more, he will contact the prime minister. Officers of the 1922 executive have already pencilled in Wednesday as the day for the leadership vote. To oust the prime minister the rebels need to muster 180 votes against Johnson. Another backbench number cruncher has calculated that up to 190 Tory MPs could vote against him.
A former cabinet minister said: “It’s 55 per cent that it happens on Monday or Tuesday. It’s 80 per cent there’s a vote after the two by-elections [on June 23].” Conservative high command is braced for the loss of both Tiverton & Honiton, where the Liberal Democrats are threatening a Tory majority of 24,000, and Wakefield, a “red wall” seat won from Labour in 2019.
Labour’s less-than-stellar performance in the red wall in the local elections has, however, calmed the nerves of Tory MPs in the 2019 intake and has left many hopeful of regaining Wakefield in a general election.
A poll by JL Partners, shatters that narrative. It puts Labour 20 points clear of the Conservatives in Wakefield and shows that voters are blaming Johnson. Tory internal polling also suggests that a “disastrous” loss is on the cards.
Is anyone else vaguely uncomfortable that letters to SGB can be submitted by WhatsApp? I trust the platform to arrange inconsequential social events or to send family photos but I'm not sure how I feel about it being used to send things of major constitutional importance. I don't think work would look on it with approval if I was sending official communications using WhatsApp. I may be being a dinosaur here - wouldn't necessarily be the first time.
It's essentially the inner workings of a private club, they can do what they like. They could select their leaders in a butt chugging contest for all we knew. Even though the winner would then become PM.
At the end of the day the means of transmission wont matter as the vote itself will presumably be in person.
Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, will count the letters, which can also be submitted by email and WhatsApp, when parliament returns on Monday morning. If they total 54 or more, he will contact the prime minister. Officers of the 1922 executive have already pencilled in Wednesday as the day for the leadership vote. To oust the prime minister the rebels need to muster 180 votes against Johnson. Another backbench number cruncher has calculated that up to 190 Tory MPs could vote against him.
A former cabinet minister said: “It’s 55 per cent that it happens on Monday or Tuesday. It’s 80 per cent there’s a vote after the two by-elections [on June 23].” Conservative high command is braced for the loss of both Tiverton & Honiton, where the Liberal Democrats are threatening a Tory majority of 24,000, and Wakefield, a “red wall” seat won from Labour in 2019.
Labour’s less-than-stellar performance in the red wall in the local elections has, however, calmed the nerves of Tory MPs in the 2019 intake and has left many hopeful of regaining Wakefield in a general election.
A poll by JL Partners, shatters that narrative. It puts Labour 20 points clear of the Conservatives in Wakefield and shows that voters are blaming Johnson. Tory internal polling also suggests that a “disastrous” loss is on the cards.
Is anyone else vaguely uncomfortable that letters to SGB can be submitted by WhatsApp? I trust the platform to arrange inconsequential social events or to send family photos but I'm not sure how I feel about it being used to send things of major constitutional importance. I don't think work would look on it with approval if I was sending official communications using WhatsApp. I may be being a dinosaur here - wouldn't necessarily be the first time.
While I wouldn't trust any Zuckerberg-owned property for anything at all, I think there is a tad of Luddism in the notion that an end-to-end encrypted digital messaging service with delivery and read receipts is less reliable than e.g. Alan the Postie.
Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, will count the letters, which can also be submitted by email and WhatsApp, when parliament returns on Monday morning. If they total 54 or more, he will contact the prime minister. Officers of the 1922 executive have already pencilled in Wednesday as the day for the leadership vote. To oust the prime minister the rebels need to muster 180 votes against Johnson. Another backbench number cruncher has calculated that up to 190 Tory MPs could vote against him.
A former cabinet minister said: “It’s 55 per cent that it happens on Monday or Tuesday. It’s 80 per cent there’s a vote after the two by-elections [on June 23].” Conservative high command is braced for the loss of both Tiverton & Honiton, where the Liberal Democrats are threatening a Tory majority of 24,000, and Wakefield, a “red wall” seat won from Labour in 2019.
Labour’s less-than-stellar performance in the red wall in the local elections has, however, calmed the nerves of Tory MPs in the 2019 intake and has left many hopeful of regaining Wakefield in a general election.
A poll by JL Partners, shatters that narrative. It puts Labour 20 points clear of the Conservatives in Wakefield and shows that voters are blaming Johnson. Tory internal polling also suggests that a “disastrous” loss is on the cards.
Is anyone else vaguely uncomfortable that letters to SGB can be submitted by WhatsApp? I trust the platform to arrange inconsequential social events or to send family photos but I'm not sure how I feel about it being used to send things of major constitutional importance. I don't think work would look on it with approval if I was sending official communications using WhatsApp. I may be being a dinosaur here - wouldn't necessarily be the first time.
I assume sent as an attachment. Which makes it no different than email.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
What transmission network?
I get my transmissions primarily now through the internet and secondarily through a satellite dish at the side of my house. Others get it through cable.
I don't think the licence fee pays for any of that, but would be happy to be corrected.
The wavelength that was previously well used should be auctioned off before long. I see no reason for our taxes to pay for that, we should be getting revenue from that instead.
"The expectation is that it will likely be this week," one critic of the prime minister told the BBC. "Colleagues have to make a decision - finally they will have to make their minds up."
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
More, that from my experience of the private sector medical system, it is run to optimise the time factor. The selling point of private medicine is fast and convenient vs NHS.
This results in management systems designed to increase throughout and investment in excess capacity.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
"Privately, Johnson’s own numbers are quite a bit worse. One party official who has seen Conservative Campaign Headquarters’ internal polling says the prime minister’s favourability rating is minus 35 per cent. Among women aged 35 to 54, a key demographic, it’s minus 70 per cent."
Cue HY telling us that women in their 50s are real Conservatives anyway and the party never had their support and doesn't need them anyway.
There is a marvellous recurring theme at key times that there is something called "Internal" or "Private" polling which somehow is worse, or better or in a mysterious way more reliable and interesting than "Polling".
I can't see any way in which this can be true. Can it?
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
In the private sector you get paid for doing stuff for the people who can pay.
Good morning everyone. I hope Ms Heathener enjoyed her trip to the Test Match yesterday.
On topic, trust is like virginity; once lost you can't get it back. And I think it's fortunate in the way for the PM that he's lost public trust at this time, because if we hadn't been sidetracked with the Jubilee he'll be even more trouble.
I suspect he'll survive the vote of confidence, but not by much. Lower end of 50-100.
Thanks OKC. We had a wonderful day. A thrilling day of test cricket which seemed to have everything.
Sounds like it was a cracking day, very jealous, although I spent the day playing (and winning) a lower league match. Lots of debate about ticket prices this year. Did you consider it value for money?
Yes but the prices were steep and we were very lucky to have a full and exciting day.
I think they should offer some cheaper tickets personally. Do you?
It’s a lot of money, and puts me off, even though I earn £50k a year (so on the low side for pb😀). For people on low incomes it must be unattainable. I would like to see targeted free/cheap tickets to encourage people outside of the standard test crowd, although I think that’s part of the rationale for the hundred. On the other hand, this is the highest level of the game, and on a good day you are getting 7 hours of entertainment, so even at £150 it’s about £20 an hour.
Test cricket, and first-class cricket more generally, is already being pushed further to the margins of the game because T20 simply makes more money. That process is only going to be accelerated if you start selling tickets for less than people are willing to pay.
Somehow they need to encourage people who feel a bit priced out of Test cricket to buy cheaper tickets to see domestic first-class games in the County Championship, so that they can see stars of Test cricket in an exciting competition for a tenth of the price. It feels like they've completely given up on that though.
Not to mention that Boris's plan for 40 new hospitals was at best 10 new hospitals, 10 reopened wards and 20 new bike racks in hospital car parks. Laser-like focus on 40 new hospitals when there are not 40 new hospitals merely emphasises Boris is a bullshitter. Laser-like focus on more staff risks handing the initiative to Jeremy Hunt who, coincidentally, published a book on the NHS just a week or two back. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/22/zero-by-jeremy-hunt-review-this-is-going-to-hurt
I think the King's Lynn one is a proper hospital. Sounds like it is sorely needed too:
"One of the hospitals waiting for news is the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which is having to use 1,500 steel and timber supports to hold up its roof in 56 separate areas. The hospital is due to reach the end of its life in 2030 and its controlling trust has asked for £862 million to rebuild it."
He can call our refurbished psychiatric block "The Boris Johnson Hospital and All Night Disco" for all I care, but without it those waiting lists will be longer rather than shorter.
No marginal constituencies nearby may well be our achillies heel to the project.
You don't vote Tory so you can all suffer in pain.
That was their slogan in 97 wasnt it? Bold, I'll give them that.
Remember the Katy's Ear row from 1992? This time it could be the Tories doing it.
Sick little girl in a hospital bed.
"Want your daughter to get better? Vote Conservative. Or else".
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
More, that from my experience of the private sector medical system, it is run to optimise the time factor. The selling point of private medicine is fast and convenient vs NHS.
This results in management systems designed to increase throughout and investment in excess capacity.
Hence 24/7 GPs
Most GPs now use private sector locum services for out-of-hours cover. It has not proved popular with patients.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
My experience of the US private health are system was that it was far more bloated and inefficient than the NHS.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
The quote is more about Tina Brown saying ‘look at me, I’m relevant’
"and buy my book"
Her quote says more about her than it does about the Queen. Whatever you think about Boris, anyone who thinks anything of the Queen would know the Queen wouldn't say it (even if it is true) so its gossip she's invented, like much of the rest of the stuff she publishes.
But say something critical of Boris and half of Twitter will retweet you and claim you're a "Royal expert" - and then quote loads of people calling you a "Royal expert" to push your new book.
The PM’s allies meanwhile are scathing about plotters who want to oust Boris Johnson.
"It's a random bunch of discontented people who don't have a plan but want to blow up the joint… I can't imagine anything more insane and self-indulgent”
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
The real NHS questions never change, and are never really answered. Here are some.
How much as % of GDP is enough for NHS needs?
How much more is this figure than current spend?
How will it be funded?
How is it possible that a rich country like the UK in a net importer (from poorer countries) not a net exporter (to poorer countries) of highly skilled medical staff?
Why do we never train enough people?
Why is everything good about the NHS attributed to the NHS and everything bad attributed to government?
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
My experience of the US private health are system was that it was far more bloated and inefficient than the NHS.
The US system is extraordinary in a number of ways. The legislation to prevent competition is one of those.
Essentially, it is designed to maximise the cost to the end users.
U.K. private medicine has to compete with free healthcare. Which has forced it to become efficient at the things the NHS is poor at - time and customer service.
Not to mention that Boris's plan for 40 new hospitals was at best 10 new hospitals, 10 reopened wards and 20 new bike racks in hospital car parks. Laser-like focus on 40 new hospitals when there are not 40 new hospitals merely emphasises Boris is a bullshitter. Laser-like focus on more staff risks handing the initiative to Jeremy Hunt who, coincidentally, published a book on the NHS just a week or two back. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/22/zero-by-jeremy-hunt-review-this-is-going-to-hurt
I think the King's Lynn one is a proper hospital. Sounds like it is sorely needed too:
"One of the hospitals waiting for news is the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which is having to use 1,500 steel and timber supports to hold up its roof in 56 separate areas. The hospital is due to reach the end of its life in 2030 and its controlling trust has asked for £862 million to rebuild it."
He can call our refurbished psychiatric block "The Boris Johnson Hospital and All Night Disco" for all I care, but without it those waiting lists will be longer rather than shorter.
No marginal constituencies nearby may well be our achillies heel to the project.
You don't vote Tory so you can all suffer in pain.
That was their slogan in 97 wasnt it? Bold, I'll give them that.
Remember the Katy's Ear row from 1992? This time it could be the Tories doing it.
Sick little girl in a hospital bed.
"Want your daughter to get better? Vote Conservative. Or else".
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mobile applications (not necessarily phones)
Are phones big enough to receive tv signals? I though you needed a decent-length antenna to get the longer wavelength stuff? Can a phone "do" 500MHz?
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
There is an ironic truth in that.
The key as to *why* is that people will be watching a zillion different things, rather than solemnly sitting down at time x to watch a program.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
Why? Data is far more effective transmission medium, and we all use the internet.
Its already been done before. The previous analogue TV spectrum has already been repurposed after it was shut down. The digital TV spectrum could and probably will do the same thing again in the future when it is finally shut down.
The PM’s allies meanwhile are scathing about plotters who want to oust Boris Johnson.
"It's a random bunch of discontented people who don't have a plan but want to blow up the joint… I can't imagine anything more insane and self-indulgent”
Self indulgence is thinking you deserve a little hair down fun when youve separated people from dying relatives. Insanity is thinking we will either forgive or forget. Fuckers. Morning all.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
The woes of Kings Lynn hospital have been all over the Eastern region TV for months. The interesting comparison between being in a private hospital as a patient and and NHS one is the aftercare. IME NHS is far better! I've been worked in the NHS and in private hospitals, and dealt with patients who've been discharged from both!
Thought you might like to know, on BBC2 last night they showed a special edition of Later with Jools Holland that was originally broadcast in 2001. An hour long Radiohead special. Excellent, if I may say so.
They played tracks from The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A, and Amnesiac.
Not to mention that Boris's plan for 40 new hospitals was at best 10 new hospitals, 10 reopened wards and 20 new bike racks in hospital car parks. Laser-like focus on 40 new hospitals when there are not 40 new hospitals merely emphasises Boris is a bullshitter. Laser-like focus on more staff risks handing the initiative to Jeremy Hunt who, coincidentally, published a book on the NHS just a week or two back. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/22/zero-by-jeremy-hunt-review-this-is-going-to-hurt
I think the King's Lynn one is a proper hospital. Sounds like it is sorely needed too:
"One of the hospitals waiting for news is the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which is having to use 1,500 steel and timber supports to hold up its roof in 56 separate areas. The hospital is due to reach the end of its life in 2030 and its controlling trust has asked for £862 million to rebuild it."
He can call our refurbished psychiatric block "The Boris Johnson Hospital and All Night Disco" for all I care, but without it those waiting lists will be longer rather than shorter.
No marginal constituencies nearby may well be our achillies heel to the project.
You don't vote Tory so you can all suffer in pain.
That was their slogan in 97 wasnt it? Bold, I'll give them that.
Remember the Katy's Ear row from 1992? This time it could be the Tories doing it.
Sick little girl in a hospital bed.
"Want your daughter to get better? Vote Conservative. Or else".
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
The real NHS questions never change, and are never really answered. Here are some.
How much as % of GDP is enough for NHS needs?
How much more is this figure than current spend?
How will it be funded?
How is it possible that a rich country like the UK in a net importer (from poorer countries) not a net exporter (to poorer countries) of highly skilled medical staff?
Why do we never train enough people?
Why is everything good about the NHS attributed to the NHS and everything bad attributed to government?
The real problem is that increasing productivity in services such as Health and Education is essentially impossible, at least (a) politically and (b) to make a difference. You can make changes at the margins which, over time, make a difference e.g. restrict overseas applicants for medicine / dentistry courses so, over time, there is a higher number of doctors and dentists coming into the system who stay in the U.K. but even that is a sticking plaster given the rising population / needs / expectations.
Royal expert Tina Brown asked what the Queen thinks of Boris Johnson, replies that: "I don't think the Queen spends any time thinking about Boris Johnson. She's seen 14 prime ministers come and go. Johnson is probably the least distinguished of the lot as far as she is concerned"
Enter the man, enter Keir Starmer
I'd never heard of Tina Brown before, so looked her up to see who you're quoting.
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I just cannot imagine someone as disciplined as the Queen giving away enough to enable an expert to be so blunt about her probable view of Johnson. Or an expert being so bold as to lay out her probable view like that.
The quote is more about Tina Brown saying ‘look at me, I’m relevant’
"and buy my book"
Her quote says more about her than it does about the Queen. Whatever you think about Boris, anyone who thinks anything of the Queen would know the Queen wouldn't say it (even if it is true) so its gossip she's invented, like much of the rest of the stuff she publishes.
But say something critical of Boris and half of Twitter will retweet you and claim you're a "Royal expert" - and then quote loads of people calling you a "Royal expert" to push your new book.
Quite cynically clever really.
Or Tina Brown has written a couple of books about the Royal Family and answered her phone when the reporter called. I see no conspiracy, and the word expert has long been devalued.
"Privately, Johnson’s own numbers are quite a bit worse. One party official who has seen Conservative Campaign Headquarters’ internal polling says the prime minister’s favourability rating is minus 35 per cent. Among women aged 35 to 54, a key demographic, it’s minus 70 per cent."
Cue HY telling us that women in their 50s are real Conservatives anyway and the party never had their support and doesn't need them anyway.
There is a marvellous recurring theme at key times that there is something called "Internal" or "Private" polling which somehow is worse, or better or in a mysterious way more reliable and interesting than "Polling".
I can't see any way in which this can be true. Can it?
It could be targetted on marginals, for example, or exclude the "weigh the votes" seats. Or have a different form for the question.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
Why? Data is far more effective transmission medium, and we all use the internet.
Its already been done before. The previous analogue TV spectrum has already been repurposed after it was shut down. The digital TV spectrum could and probably will do the same thing again in the future when it is finally shut down.
Two reasons: aerial size (see my reply to Malmsbury), and interoperability. If TV frequencies become a kind of 6G network, will mobile phone technology need to change to talk on those frequencies? If so, is the UK market alone big enough for that kind of manufacturing push? If other, larger, markets are doing the same thing then yes. But if not it'll be economically questionable for phone manufacturers.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
The real NHS questions never change, and are never really answered. Here are some.
How much as % of GDP is enough for NHS needs?
How much more is this figure than current spend?
How will it be funded?
How is it possible that a rich country like the UK in a net importer (from poorer countries) not a net exporter (to poorer countries) of highly skilled medical staff?
Why do we never train enough people?
Why is everything good about the NHS attributed to the NHS and everything bad attributed to government?
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
More, that from my experience of the private sector medical system, it is run to optimise the time factor. The selling point of private medicine is fast and convenient vs NHS.
This results in management systems designed to increase throughout and investment in excess capacity.
Hence 24/7 GPs
BiB: Isn't that just a different way of saying "getting stuff done".
Anyone who calls the US medical system "private" doesn't really understand it at all. The US system is a corrupt rort that is all about who can lobby Senators to protect their interests the most. The US spends more per person in taxes on healthcare than we do in the UK - "private" is the last thing that it is, it is pure corruption.
The PM’s allies meanwhile are scathing about plotters who want to oust Boris Johnson.
"It's a random bunch of discontented people who don't have a plan but want to blow up the joint… I can't imagine anything more insane and self-indulgent”
Additionally, it's worth remembering that Boris has very recently had to apologise for being at best very foolish. His pitch is that he screwed up but he is the best person to sort out the big problems they face. He can hardly whinge if others take the view that he scewed up and he is not the best person to sort out the big problems they face.
Yes, hadn't struck me, but as that article states - Boris was booed by a monarchist crowd!
Yep. If a Tory PM isn’t winning with that demographic then where is he winning?
Honestly I do hope that there is a VONC this week and we see the end of him. God knows who the Tories have who can right the ship in the next two years though.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
In the private sector you get paid for getting stuff done.
Here is what Jeremy Hunt says in his book Zero. We need to increase capacity:-
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
The real NHS questions never change, and are never really answered. Here are some.
How much as % of GDP is enough for NHS needs?
How much more is this figure than current spend?
How will it be funded?
How is it possible that a rich country like the UK in a net importer (from poorer countries) not a net exporter (to poorer countries) of highly skilled medical staff?
Why do we never train enough people?
Why is everything good about the NHS attributed to the NHS and everything bad attributed to government?
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
It's not even an issue about money or use of spectrum. The very notion of sitting down at the same time to watch the same broadcast TV is outdated. If you look at what kids do it's obvious that broadcasting will wither and die.
If you hate the BBC you should support the licence fee, as maintaing the status quo is the best way to ensure the death of the BBC. The BBC catching up with the modern world would give it a good fighting chance, but it's staunchest supporters don't want that.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
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. A private BBC could still have a public service broadcasting mandate.
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.
All of this makes sense. The BBC itself won’t countenance any other method of funding than the license fee. However it needs to do so and the howls from very well paid BBC employees about the evil Tories getting rid of the poll tax on Tv hardly helps. It seems the only thing they fear losing is their well paid roles
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
Transmission? Its 2022. Even Sky has rolled out a 100% streamed version. When we had roof repairs done we had all three TV aerials removed off the roof. One modern, one looked old, the final one looked like it had been installed to receive Grampian Television for its 1961 switch-on.
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
Broadcast TV is walking dead. There will be a switch over to the internet. Maybe a decade.
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
What purposes?
Mainly for watching television over the internet.
Wait a sec, are we saying that TV broadcast frequencies will be used to carry internet data instead? That sounds a little odd to me.
There is an ironic truth in that.
The key as to *why* is that people will be watching a zillion different things, rather than solemnly sitting down at time x to watch a program.
Oh, I get the why, I'm all for it if it works. But I have my doubts from a technology standpoint.
"A group of hospitals waiting for permission to rebuild centres in Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Hertfordshire, Essex and London have been told not to expect news until later this year, after being previously told a decision would come in the spring. The Treasury has taken control of the programme’s budget and has refused to approve any scheme until the Department of Health and No 10 agree on a total bill."
The Leicester one is a proposed £40 million conversion of a disused psychiatry block on the Leicester General Hospital site, for use as an orthopedic and surgical specialities treatment Centre. No way will those waiting list targets be met without that sort of investment. leart its
Hate to say it, but with the Treasury involved you won't get it.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
Don't worry about the IRP - its true it was a fantasy but as none of it is even moving into detailed planning stage never mind getting funding we can just forget about it completely.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
Which kind of illustrates some other points.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
The woes of Kings Lynn hospital have been all over the Eastern region TV for months. The interesting comparison between being in a private hospital as a patient and and NHS one is the aftercare. IME NHS is far better! I've been worked in the NHS and in private hospitals, and dealt with patients who've been discharged from both!
OKC, fine if you can get into an NHS one though, nowadys you have to be near pegging it.
It's not even an issue about money or use of spectrum. The very notion of sitting down at the same time to watch the same broadcast TV is outdated. If you look at what kids do it's obvious that broadcasting will wither and die.
Comments
Johnson is the three mile island event for this phase of the Tory party. The runaway nuclear reactor who once provided light and heat to hard to reach places has turned into a runaway. They either dump the core and save themselves, or they say "he once provided light and heat, lets trust him not to melt through the floor".
There has been a flurry of activity among rebels this weekend who believe they have reached the 54 letters required to spark one. #sundaymorninglive
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1533367578189504514
I'm actually a bit conflicted about this. Yes, it's right and sensible somebody tells the government what they can and can't afford to do and that policy is made accordingly. What bothers me more however is the way the Treasury continues to splash money on all the wrong things and usually without the slightest sign of understanding its possible multiplier effect.
The IRP, which was clearly a fantasy and would actually be more costly and much slower (as well as much less effective) than building HS2 and HSN in full being the most egregious example, but I can think of others. Building Schools for the Future was a shambles as well.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d789bc6c-e41b-11ec-a6dd-97fa9f1901cf?shareToken=f980814a15dc57f1955a078280bf6e09
On the other hand, this is the highest level of the game, and on a good day you are getting 7 hours of entertainment, so even at £150 it’s about £20 an hour.
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
for your love is more delightful than wine.
3 Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes;
your name is like perfume poured out.
No wonder the young women love you!
4 Take me away with you—let us hurry!
Let the king bring me into his chambers.
"One of the hospitals waiting for news is the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which is having to use 1,500 steel and timber supports to hold up its roof in 56 separate areas. The hospital is due to reach the end of its life in 2030 and its controlling trust has asked for £862 million to rebuild it."
He can call our refurbished psychiatric block "The Boris Johnson Hospital and All Night Disco" for all I care, but without it those waiting lists will be longer rather than shorter.
No marginal constituencies nearby may well be our achillies heel to the project.
The original plan was for subscription (for TV), but the technology of the time (late 50s) wasn’t up to encryption that wasn’t trivially breakable. See David Kahn’s “The Codebreakers” - a brilliant history of cryptography, very readable for the layman…
There are 2 possible paths now -
- extend the license fee to anything that can show video.
- Some kind of subscription model.
Incidentally, within a decade or so broadcast TV will be shutdown and the wavelengths will be auctioned off. TV will move entirely to the internet.
The runaway success of Netflix shows what can be done - they are only running into trouble over content, now.
If the BBC had really grasped this nettle a long time ago, the worldwide subscription fees would pay for the BBC and then some. Just the subscriptions from the USA would do that, probably.
Imagine that as a pitch - “The BBC. Totally independent of government, because it is paid for entirely by overseas subscriptions. Free in the U.K.”
It would seem that will be the "Royal expert" Tina Brown who has lived in the USA since 1984, and has a history of tabloid and salacious gossip writing, and is currently peddling a book she has written on the Royals that other 'royal experts' have said contains "highly implausible" gossip.
I think the Queen is professional enough at her role that she won't have said to anyone (except maybe Prince Philip when he was alive) what she privately thinks of any serving PM.
1. Not a new hospital
2. Not even a new building
3. Critical to getting waiting lists down and people taken out of chronic pain which we all remember is why we're paying more taxes. Which have been taken from us but the facility not getting the go-ahead.
The new leader will have to do a lot of repositioning on stuff like this. An honest conversation about what can be built and at what cost in what time. So if Sunak wins the job he will blame Boris. If it isn't Sunak then expect Sunak to get the sack and the new leader to blame both of them.
The vivid contrast between the grubby, sleazy operation at No. 10 and the good-natured, patriotic and dignified Jubilee festivities is very sharp and may well be noticed. And I'm no monarchist.
The obvious solution here is the Blair one. The NHS pays private hospitals to clear it's waiting lists.
May did quite a lot to distance herself from the Cameron government.
And whilst the pain can be distributed differently, some sort of Cost of Living Crisis is inevitable.
Cue HY telling us that women in their 50s are real Conservatives anyway and the party never had their support and doesn't need them anyway.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, will count the letters, which can also be submitted by email and WhatsApp, when parliament returns on Monday morning. If they total 54 or more, he will contact the prime minister. Officers of the 1922 executive have already pencilled in Wednesday as the day for the leadership vote. To oust the prime minister the rebels need to muster 180 votes against Johnson. Another backbench number cruncher has calculated that up to 190 Tory MPs could vote against him.
A former cabinet minister said: “It’s 55 per cent that it happens on Monday or Tuesday. It’s 80 per cent there’s a vote after the two by-elections [on June 23].” Conservative high command is braced for the loss of both Tiverton & Honiton, where the Liberal Democrats are threatening a Tory majority of 24,000, and Wakefield, a “red wall” seat won from Labour in 2019.
Labour’s less-than-stellar performance in the red wall in the local elections has, however, calmed the nerves of Tory MPs in the 2019 intake and has left many hopeful of regaining Wakefield in a general election.
A poll by JL Partners, shatters that narrative. It puts Labour 20 points clear of the Conservatives in Wakefield and shows that voters are blaming Johnson. Tory internal polling also suggests that a “disastrous” loss is on the cards.
As for the true public service element the govt should simply put this out to tender and allow various broadcasters to bid for it for a set period of time.
The barely watched local TV channels would be ideal for the TV element and there are plenty of local radio stations.
The transmission network should be funded via general taxation.
What it also says is how casual and lazy Johnson is. On the rare occasions I am asked to read the lesson, I read it through first. He clearly didn't think to.
So I think he will be cautious, and probably speak through William who will be able to get away with more.
If you take a domestic dwelling and reduce it to just front and side walls, all floors and roof ripped out, and rebuilt, it is classed as a new dwelling for VAT purposes.
Not far from where I live, they’ve ripped a commercial building back to the concrete frame (everything else, including services removed), to convert it to tower of flats. I believe that was classed, for planning purposes as new construction.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
If they get to the vote of confidence, it's really incumbent upon MPs to vote Johnson out. There's no point keeping him as a lame duck PM.
The staff are actually the same. How/why is it that they provide more health care, via the private sector?
We have a Sky dish, but half the time the stuff watched on Sky is streamed as well. What the Beeb needs to accept is that the world is shifting rapidly thanks to technology, and it either finds ways to adapt or it will simply be archaic. Scrap the fee, have subscription for the good stuff and use that to subsidise the legally required radio service.
"Countering that is the argument reinforced by a big date next week. A week today, June 12, marks the exact midpoint of this parliament, when the date by which the next general election must be held is as far away as the last one."
The frequencies will raise billions at auction, for other purposes.
At the end of the day the means of transmission wont matter as the vote itself will presumably be in person.
The NHS is conditioned to ask ministers for money every time a request is made to improve services. But extra money has little impact if there aren’t enough staff to deliver that improvement. There is no point giving an extra billion pounds to cut waiting lists or improve care, if you don’t have a billion pounds’ worth of additional doctors and nurses to spend it on – and if you don’t, the extra money will simply inflate the salaries of the existing workforce, particularly agency staff and locums.
Some have tried to get around this issue by contracting the private sector to do additional work for the NHS. Unfortunately this doesn’t work either, because independent hospitals fish from the same pool of doctors for their workforce – indeed, they employ NHS doctors for much of their work. Over-reliance on the private sector therefore sucks doctors and nurses out of NHS hospitals, making waiting lists even longer. The only answer is to consider properly the entire capacity of the system, whether NHS or independent.
I get my transmissions primarily now through the internet and secondarily through a satellite dish at the side of my house. Others get it through cable.
I don't think the licence fee pays for any of that, but would be happy to be corrected.
The wavelength that was previously well used should be auctioned off before long. I see no reason for our taxes to pay for that, we should be getting revenue from that instead.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61693296
This results in management systems designed to increase throughout and investment in excess capacity.
Hence 24/7 GPs
I can't see any way in which this can be true. Can it?
Somehow they need to encourage people who feel a bit priced out of Test cricket to buy cheaper tickets to see domestic first-class games in the County Championship, so that they can see stars of Test cricket in an exciting competition for a tenth of the price. It feels like they've completely given up on that though.
Sick little girl in a hospital bed.
"Want your daughter to get better? Vote Conservative. Or else".
Her quote says more about her than it does about the Queen. Whatever you think about Boris, anyone who thinks anything of the Queen would know the Queen wouldn't say it (even if it is true) so its gossip she's invented, like much of the rest of the stuff she publishes.
But say something critical of Boris and half of Twitter will retweet you and claim you're a "Royal expert" - and then quote loads of people calling you a "Royal expert" to push your new book.
Quite cynically clever really.
The PM’s allies meanwhile are scathing about plotters who want to oust Boris Johnson.
"It's a random bunch of discontented people who don't have a plan but want to blow up the joint… I can't imagine anything more insane and self-indulgent”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61693296
How much as % of GDP is enough for NHS needs?
How much more is this figure than current spend?
How will it be funded?
How is it possible that a rich country like the UK in a net importer (from poorer countries) not a net exporter (to poorer countries) of highly skilled medical staff?
Why do we never train enough people?
Why is everything good about the NHS attributed to the NHS and everything bad attributed to government?
Essentially, it is designed to maximise the cost to the end users.
U.K. private medicine has to compete with free healthcare. Which has forced it to become efficient at the things the NHS is poor at - time and customer service.
The key as to *why* is that people will be watching a zillion different things, rather than solemnly sitting down at time x to watch a program.
Its already been done before. The previous analogue TV spectrum has already been repurposed after it was shut down. The digital TV spectrum could and probably will do the same thing again in the future when it is finally shut down.
They have to be thinking about who might likely succeed him? Are there candidates they're desperate not to send to the membership?
Morning all.
The interesting comparison between being in a private hospital as a patient and and NHS one is the aftercare. IME NHS is far better!
I've been worked in the NHS and in private hospitals, and dealt with patients who've been discharged from both!
They played tracks from The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A, and Amnesiac.
What a band.
Scary that it’s 21 years ago though.
Anyone who calls the US medical system "private" doesn't really understand it at all. The US system is a corrupt rort that is all about who can lobby Senators to protect their interests the most. The US spends more per person in taxes on healthcare than we do in the UK - "private" is the last thing that it is, it is pure corruption.
The worm is turning...
Additionally, it's worth remembering that Boris has very recently had to apologise for being at best very foolish. His pitch is that he screwed up but he is the best person to sort out the big problems they face. He can hardly whinge if others take the view that he scewed up and he is not the best person to sort out the big problems they face.
Honestly I do hope that there is a VONC this week and we see the end of him. God knows who the Tories have who can right the ship in the next two years though.
If you hate the BBC you should support the licence fee, as maintaing the status quo is the best way to ensure the death of the BBC. The BBC catching up with the modern world would give it a good fighting chance, but it's staunchest supporters don't want that.