SO..The BBC could cut huge numbers from it staff and still produce the same level of programme..The ones left might just have to work a little harder. The difference between producer numbers between the BBC and Independent companies is remarkable...even when the Independent is actually working for the BBC.
Of course. But if the BBC is going to be financed through subscription and advertising it will become a direct competitor with other broadcasters for revenue. What it will do is cut all the stuff that makes no money - the regional services, the websites, the national event coverage, a lot of the radio output - and focus on what does make money: sport, drama, comedy, news, light entertainment etc. That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more.
Why will it definitely cut all the stuff that doesn't make money? Sky I believe is now spending more money on Arts programmes than ever before and more into homegrown drama. Channel 4 manages to make plenty of niche programmes, that aren't aimed at the masses.
It won't cut it all. I imagine drama will be a big part of its offering, and that there will be a degree of high-level news programming and arts also - but everything will have to be commercially justifiable given that the BBC will be competing for advertising and subscriptions (if that is the model).
A by-election in Coventry NW would be delicious - our Geoffrey actually managed to reduce his share of the vote last week in a safe Labour seat. Parachuting in Ed Balls would be suicide for Labour and they're not likely to do it!
Did I see a suggestion somewhere that Geoffrey Robinson, who was reputedly strongly thinking about standing down before this election, is now thinking of doing so to give Ed Balls a route back to Parliament?
Huzzah, John Whittingdale the new Culture Secretary.
He's going to hammer the BBC, expect the license fee to be reduced to £20 per year.
Purnell may as well hand in his notice now and run for Labour leader!
Actually I realise I have very likely lost my fiver but it would not surprise me at all if he is Labour leader one day. Labour turning to David Miliband would be guilt by association, Purnell is the ideal choice for DM supporters.
O/T - REMINDER
Nigel - in order to settle our bet, NatWest requires me to enter the name of your account on their authorisation form ...... i.e. this is a required field. Please email this to me at: peterfromputney@gmail.com
SO..The BBC could cut huge numbers from it staff and still produce the same level of programme..The ones left might just have to work a little harder. The difference between producer numbers between the BBC and Independent companies is remarkable...even when the Independent is actually working for the BBC.
Of course. But if the BBC is going to be financed through subscription and advertising it will become a direct competitor with other broadcasters for revenue. What it will do is cut all the stuff that makes no money - the regional services, the websites, the national event coverage, a lot of the radio output - and focus on what does make money: sport, drama, comedy, news, light entertainment etc. That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more.
Increased competition does not in conventional economics result in increased prices.
Furthermore, in the days when I paid a licence fee I did so pretty much exclusively so that my children could watch Spongebob Squarepants and Futurama on Sky, so had the licence fee been abolished that would effectively have been a £145 reduction in my Sky subscription, so Sky could have doubled their actual sub and I would still be in the money. I suspect that lots and lots of other people pay the licence fee without ever watching a single minute of BBC output.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
I get very poor value from the BBC - just Top Gear (until recently) and occasionally good episodes of QI (gone downhill since they mandated unfunny female comedians every week).
I've long given up on the rest of their propaganda
So you watch only two programmes a week. Now, I do not know the answer to this, but how much would (say) Netflix charge for two programmes a week?
SO..Assuming there is a market and need for all those services the BBC would have to give up then it is an opportunity for some other folk to pick them up and run with them..maybe even the misplaced Journos,..why should the taxpayer pay for them and face a prison term if they fail to do so..ridiculous in the extreme..
I agree. I am assuming that the licence fee will go and working through what might happen as a result. The BBC shows a lot of stuff that others do not precisely because there is no money in it. If it is competing for subscriptions and advertising - and is answerable to investors for the decisions it takes - then it will no longer show them.
The sheer complacency of Alanbrooke and Charles on Chuka is rather ridiculous, many commentators believed Obama could never win Middle America, but he did
I think you're falling into the trap of taking Chuka at his own estimation. He's as inferior to Obama as Quayle was to JFK. He'd take Labour to only previously dreamt of lows. I hope he wins.
The sheer complacency of Alanbrooke and Charles on Chuka is rather ridiculous, many commentators believed Obama could never win Middle America, but he did
'Jetrosexual' Chuka would be a Tory dream for Labour leader.
Seeing Gloria De Piero on that list reminds me that there were wild rumours on Thursday night that Labour were in danger of losing the seat. In 2010 the Lib Dems had come within a whisker of taking the seat. There were fevered kippers suggesting that UKIP were in with a shout this time around.
In the event, Labour easily held the seat. The Conservatives were second.
'A by-election in Coventry NW would be delicious - our Geoffrey actually managed to reduce his share of the vote last week in a safe Labour seat. Parachuting in Ed Balls would be suicide for Labour and they're not likely to do it!'
SO..The BBC could cut huge numbers from it staff and still produce the same level of programme..The ones left might just have to work a little harder. The difference between producer numbers between the BBC and Independent companies is remarkable...even when the Independent is actually working for the BBC.
Of course. But if the BBC is going to be financed through subscription and advertising it will become a direct competitor with other broadcasters for revenue. What it will do is cut all the stuff that makes no money - the regional services, the websites, the national event coverage, a lot of the radio output - and focus on what does make money: sport, drama, comedy, news, light entertainment etc. That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more.
Increased competition does not in conventional economics result in increased prices.
Furthermore, in the days when I paid a licence fee I did so pretty much exclusively so that my children could watch Spongebob Squarepants and Futurama on Sky, so had the licence fee been abolished that would effectively have been a £145 reduction in my Sky subscription, so Sky could have doubled their actual sub and I would still be in the money. I suspect that lots and lots of other people pay the licence fee without ever watching a single minute of BBC output.
That may be the case. I guess we will find out. What is not in doubt is that a BBC funded by subscriptions and advertising would be directly competing for revenue with Sky, ITN and online providers. That may drive down prices, but what it may mean is that the events that Sky relies on to drive and maintain its base become a lot more expensive. There is only one Premier League and there are a finite number of games.
SO..Assuming there is a market and need for all those services the BBC would have to give up then it is an opportunity for some other folk to pick them up and run with them..maybe even the misplaced Journos,..why should the taxpayer pay for them and face a prison term if they fail to do so..ridiculous in the extreme..
I agree. I am assuming that the licence fee will go and working through what might happen as a result. The BBC shows a lot of stuff that others do not precisely because there is no money in it. If it is competing for subscriptions and advertising - and is answerable to investors for the decisions it takes - then it will no longer show them.
Can you give good examples of programme types that on BBC that C4 or Sky have never shown any interest in getting involved in?
And how do you know that somebody might not think hey there is a market in such and such programme type if the BBC didn't do it?
An example that comes to mind is the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. BBC originally showed them, BBC said couldn't justify continuing to show them. C4 then took over and showed them live for the first time. When their contract came to an end, C5 stepped in. They are now back on the BBC.
I highly doubt they make huge amounts of money for C4 or C5, but they were on either of those channels for 10 years. They didn't just die, because the BBC said they didn't want to continue showing them.
I can honestly say I watch at most two hours of BBC a month. I no longer listen to any of their radio.
All my viewing is ITV or one of those Freesat genre ones where 99 % of content is US or Canadian. I subscribe to Netflix too and a couple of us networks like CBS. It's much better value than BBC
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
I get very poor value from the BBC - just Top Gear (until recently) and occasionally good episodes of QI (gone downhill since they mandated unfunny female comedians every week).
I've long given up on the rest of their propaganda
So you watch only two programmes a week. Now, I do not know the answer to this, but how much would (say) Netflix charge for two programmes a week?
If the BBC is a state broadcaster why dont we pay for it out of our income tax and NI?
If we had to pay £120 pa for nhs and would be prosecuted or unable to receive treatment if we didn't there would be an outrage
Reading what Whittingdale has said, some of the license fee may go onto Council Tax to ensure there is a progressive element to its payment. Also iPlayer (and perhaps some of the more niche BBC channels) may go to a subscription model.
"But the Libdems also had MP's elected right across the UK when they were the third party, so this could well scupper the hopes of the SNP to be automatically awarded a weekly questions slot at PMQ's. "
It is this sort of curmudgeonly attitude that guarantees the loss of your beloved Union-keep it up :-)
A by-election in Coventry NW would be delicious - our Geoffrey actually managed to reduce his share of the vote last week in a safe Labour seat. Parachuting in Ed Balls would be suicide for Labour and they're not likely to do it!
Might go and help leaflet for the Conservatives down there. Allan Andrews a potential candidate I reckon.
If the BBC is a state broadcaster why dont we pay for it out of our income tax and NI?
If we had to pay £120 pa for nhs and would be prosecuted or unable to receive treatment if we didn't there would be an outrage
That certainly makes a lot more sense than a compulsory fee that has to be collected separately.
One argument I heard was that a fee makes it harder for the sitting government to intimidate them than if they were getting funded out of taxation, but I'm not convinced about that since the government can vary the amount they're allowed to charge instead. And Japan has a similar system, but the current government seems to have had very little trouble making NHK its bitch.
Seeing Gloria De Piero on that list reminds me that there were wild rumours on Thursday night that Labour were in danger of losing the seat. In 2010 the Lib Dems had come within a whisker of taking the seat. There were fevered kippers suggesting that UKIP were in with a shout this time around.
In the event, Labour easily held the seat. The Conservatives were second.
Seeing Gloria De Piero on that list reminds me that there were wild rumours on Thursday night that Labour were in danger of losing the seat. In 2010 the Lib Dems had come within a whisker of taking the seat. There were fevered kippers suggesting that UKIP were in with a shout this time around.
In the event, Labour easily held the seat. The Conservatives were second.
Tom watson being Deputy requires Kendall or Cooper to become leader. There are definitely better odds available than 5-4...
Michael Gove's abrasiveness is exactly what is needed to shake up the legal establishment. If we don't hear squealing louder than piggies in an abattoir, he'll seriously disappoint me.
It is a pointer that David Cameron does not intend Justice to be a quiet department.
A lawyer friend of mine wrote the following on Facebook:
Regular readers may recall my unfashionable but long-standing admiration for Michael Gove, bravely rattling the cage of the teaching profession and not caring whose nose he puts out of joint while doing so.
Now that he has become Secretary of State for Justice, I now realise he is nothing but an unprincipled wrecker, idiotically forcing through misguided changes against the counsel of wiser figures. Apologies for any different impression I may have given in the past.
' That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more. '
More competition leading to higher prices, a new economic theory ?
Uxbridge by-election just after 1997 landslide resulted into a comfortable hold for the Conservatives. But it wasn't an unnecessary by-election like it would be Coventry NW. I would certainly feel pissed if I were a Coventry voter and Robinson resigns after 1 week
More evidence Mediterranean immigrants driven by material desires not fear for their lives, and putting their own and other's lives in danger in the process.
I believe it is a new bloke called Mr Purple. He strongly denies he is Mr Green or has ever had anything to do with a Mr Green, despite an uncanny resemblance.
On the polling, I don't think the polling was wrong as such. I don't think there are 'shy Tories'. I think it is much simpler than that: it was 'soft Labour' wot did it - people who vaguely support Labour (and told pollsters that) but when push came to shove couldn't bring themselves to actually vote Labour in order to put a clearly incompetent and unready opposition into power - especially into 'power' but in thrall to the SNP.
You only have to look at the Labour supporters here. Almost no-one actually rated Ed Miliband, or championed the Labour policy platform, such as it was. A few tried to improve their own morale by clutching at any straws in the campaign which suggested Ed wasn't quite as bad as they had feared (though even that was hard to do, given Labour's self-inflicted injuries such as the EdStone). But there was no enthusiasm, and no determination.
That's my reading too. It's also borne out by reports from on the ground: voters who'd been identified as firm supporters avoiding the canvasser's eye on the day of the vote ...
Seeing Gloria De Piero on that list reminds me that there were wild rumours on Thursday night that Labour were in danger of losing the seat. In 2010 the Lib Dems had come within a whisker of taking the seat. There were fevered kippers suggesting that UKIP were in with a shout this time around.
In the event, Labour easily held the seat. The Conservatives were second.
Tom watson being Deputy requires Kendall or Cooper to become leader. There are definitely better odds available than 5-4...
The LibDem in Ashfield had to drop out just weeks before the date of the election.
SO..Assuming there is a market and need for all those services the BBC would have to give up then it is an opportunity for some other folk to pick them up and run with them..maybe even the misplaced Journos,..why should the taxpayer pay for them and face a prison term if they fail to do so..ridiculous in the extreme..
I agree. I am assuming that the licence fee will go and working through what might happen as a result. The BBC shows a lot of stuff that others do not precisely because there is no money in it. If it is competing for subscriptions and advertising - and is answerable to investors for the decisions it takes - then it will no longer show them.
Can you give good examples of programme types that on BBC that C4 or Sky have never shown any interest in getting involved in?
And how do you know that somebody might not think hey there is a market in such and such programme type if the BBC didn't do it?
An example that comes to mind is the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. BBC originally showed them, BBC said couldn't justify continuing to show them. C4 then took over and showed them live for the first time. When their contract came to an end, C5 stepped in. They are now back on the BBC.
I highly doubt they make huge amounts of money for C4 or C5, but they were on either of those channels for 10 years. They didn't just die, because the BBC said they didn't want to continue showing them.
Regional programming is the obvious one; children's TV is another.
I am not claiming anything will die. I am just saying that if the BBC is competing for advertising and subscription revenue its decisions will be commercially driven and that will affect the programming it offers - on TV, radio and online.
More evidence Mediterranean immigrants driven by material desires not fear for their lives, and putting their own and other's lives in danger in the process.
The illegal immigration picture in the med is way more complicated than some media outlets are making out. They would have you believe that ALL are escaping war torn areas of Africa, when it just isn't true.
What the Conservative manifesto said about the Beeb:
A free media is the bedrock of an open society. We will deliver a comprehensive review of the BBC Royal Charter, ensuring it delivers value for money for the licence fee payer, while maintaining a world class service and supporting our creative industries. That is why we froze the BBC licence fee and will keep it frozen, pending Charter renewal. And we will continue to ‘topslice’ the licence fee for digital infrastructure to support superfast broadband across the country.
It's worth remembering that the Blair government seriously considered ending or radically changing the licence-fee model at the time of the last Charter renewal. The main reason was the changed technological environment, which meant a model designed for a time when there were just a handful of national TV stations, and no internet, was no longer appropriate. In the end they did renew it without major changes, but they did warn that it was likely that that would be the last time.
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
I get very poor value from the BBC - just Top Gear (until recently) and occasionally good episodes of QI (gone downhill since they mandated unfunny female comedians every week).
I've long given up on the rest of their propaganda
So you watch only two programmes a week. Now, I do not know the answer to this, but how much would (say) Netflix charge for two programmes a week?
£6.99.
I watch far more than 2 programmes a week. But 99% of it comes from the US - I watch the occasionally UK show - "No Offence" was the latest whether I watch another episode of it I don't know. Like Ms Plato I watch a lot of american TV via various means, although sky is gradually getting teh hint that showing stuff immediately is the best option.
Recently/Curently watching: NCIS NCIS NOLA NCIS LA Hawaii 5 0 Blue Bloods Criminal Minds Black List Forever (cancelled wtf) Sleepy Hollow Mentalist (finished) Rizzoli & Isles Perception Elementary The Following
' That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more. '
More competition leading to higher prices, a new economic theory ?
How much is a Sky Sports subscription now that BT is also offering live PL football? Clue: it's a lot more than it used to be.
If he does it, he better not show up again at CLP meetings...or some will try to kill him. It won't be difficult to miss them given that in the SoPN he gives an home address from Surrey NW....
Whist we are discussing cabinet posts, whatever happened to the title 'President of the Board of Trade'? I always thought it was rather a fantastic title!
Have we a Chief Secretary to the Treasury yet? Very important post if this government is going to deliver on the promised cuts.
Maybe another woman?
I hope it's Steve Baker. One of few politicians who truly understand the market.
Yes ..... a surprising delay in announcing this key appointment, especially as Osborne must surely have had someone in mind. I wonder if there has been some sort of hiccup?
Whist we are discussing cabinet posts, whatever happened to the title 'President of the Board of Trade'? I always thought it was rather a fantastic title!
@LeoHickman: My mum just texted to say Ed/Justine Miliband are on her flight to Ibiza (sans enfant). An all-nighter as Pacha to cure post-election blues?
Parties on the left are going to have to think very very carefully about their EU referendum positioning if Dave is leading the "in" campaign. Particularly Labour...
'The sheer complacency of Alanbrooke and Charles on Chuka is rather ridiculous, many commentators believed Obama could never win Middle America, but he did'
Can't imagine a Savile Row socialist with his Chukka Harrison twitter comments would go down a bundle with the comrades.
What the Conservative manifesto said about the Beeb:
A free media is the bedrock of an open society. We will deliver a comprehensive review of the BBC Royal Charter, ensuring it delivers value for money for the licence fee payer, while maintaining a world class service and supporting our creative industries. That is why we froze the BBC licence fee and will keep it frozen, pending Charter renewal. And we will continue to ‘topslice’ the licence fee for digital infrastructure to support superfast broadband across the country.
It's worth remembering that the Blair government seriously considered ending or radically changing the licence-fee model at the time of the last Charter renewal. The main reason was the changed technological environment, which meant a model designed for a time when there were just a handful of national TV stations, and no internet, was no longer appropriate. In the end they did renew it without major changes, but they did warn that it was likely that that would be the last time.
One of the wackiest things about the current structure is that the BBC pay Sky due to Sky carrying the BBC channels.
SO..Assuming there is a market and need for all those services the BBC would have to give up then it is an opportunity for some other folk to pick them up and run with them..maybe even the misplaced Journos,..why should the taxpayer pay for them and face a prison term if they fail to do so..ridiculous in the extreme..
I agree. I am assuming that the licence fee will go and working through what might happen as a result. The BBC shows a lot of stuff that others do not precisely because there is no money in it. If it is competing for subscriptions and advertising - and is answerable to investors for the decisions it takes - then it will no longer show them.
Can you give good examples of programme types that on BBC that C4 or Sky have never shown any interest in getting involved in?
And how do you know that somebody might not think hey there is a market in such and such programme type if the BBC didn't do it?
An example that comes to mind is the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. BBC originally showed them, BBC said couldn't justify continuing to show them. C4 then took over and showed them live for the first time. When their contract came to an end, C5 stepped in. They are now back on the BBC.
I highly doubt they make huge amounts of money for C4 or C5, but they were on either of those channels for 10 years. They didn't just die, because the BBC said they didn't want to continue showing them.
Regional programming is the obvious one; children's TV is another.
I am not claiming anything will die. I am just saying that if the BBC is competing for advertising and subscription revenue its decisions will be commercially driven and that will affect the programming it offers - on TV, radio and online.
Does ITV not have regional programming?
What is impossible to know is where it is that other media outlets aren't currently competing with the BBC because they don't think there is a dime in it, when it is because the BBC dominates making it impossible to make a dime or that they think the market is already well served.
In terms of tv, I would say regional programming is the more likely the former and kids programmes the later. But when it comes to radio, a combination of broadcasting license regulations and the massive presence of the BBC, makes competing very very difficult.
One other thought....regional programming and channels aren't dead in the US, despite the massive power of the mega networks. Also, with the internet, if anybody has seen twitch, you can now broadcast to niche markets and make money very easily and there are some channels on there that are very very professional. I believe google / youtube are going to roll out something similar.
Moniker/Watford Rubbish, exactly the same was said about Obama in 2008 and 2012 that he was too metrosexual and metropolitan and liberal to win. But he did win by winning in the suburbs and amongst ethnic minorities
The idea Labour needs to win gritty small towns is also mistaken, they need to win the cities and at least tie the suburbs. Eg in 2008 Obama won urban areas 63-35, led McCain in the suburbs 50-48 and lost rural areas 53-45. In 2012 Obama won big cities (population 500,000 or more) 69-29, mid-sized cities (population 50-500,000) 58-40. The suburbs were tied with Romney leading by just 50-48. Obama lost towns (population 10,000-50,000) to Romney by 56-42 and rural areas by 67-31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
Whist we are discussing cabinet posts, whatever happened to the title 'President of the Board of Trade'? I always thought it was rather a fantastic title!
Soooo 1950's!
Wasn't Heseltine referred to as it in the 90's? Perhaps it was consolation to not being Prime Minister to call yourself President.
Robert Halfon is keen on scrapping hospital car parking fees I believe. Wonder if he has the clout to get it done now?
Does anyone else remember Sturgeon saying that hospital car parking fees had already been abolished in Scotland during the debates when Farage brought this up?
[I've accidentally flagged this as off-topic btw. Is there a way to undo that?]
Screwing the Tory-run BBC is one thing. Let's hope none of its viewers and listeners are also voters.
Dunno though, they're also license fee payers. I know they're supportive of the BBC when polled, but this seems like good politics to me: Cut the license fee, then dare Labour to promise to put it back up again...
But what the bbc does is not a bad thing, you get tremendous value for money from it. If they just stopped their metropolitan social engineering and propaganda rubbish i wouldnt have any issue with them. If the BBC has a problem, ITV isnt the solution.
I get very poor value from the BBC - just Top Gear (until recently) and occasionally good episodes of QI (gone downhill since they mandated unfunny female comedians every week).
I've long given up on the rest of their propaganda
So you watch only two programmes a week. Now, I do not know the answer to this, but how much would (say) Netflix charge for two programmes a week?
£6.99.
I watch far more than 2 programmes a week. But 99% of it comes from the US - I watch the occasionally UK show - "No Offence" was the latest whether I watch another episode of it I don't know. Like Ms Plato I watch a lot of american TV via various means, although sky is gradually getting teh hint that showing stuff immediately is the best option.
Recently/Curently watching: NCIS NCIS NOLA NCIS LA Hawaii 5 0 Blue Bloods Criminal Minds Black List Forever (cancelled wtf) Sleepy Hollow Mentalist (finished) Rizzoli & Isles Perception Elementary The Following
Huzzah, John Whittingdale the new Culture Secretary.
He's going to hammer the BBC, expect the license fee to be reduced to £20 per year.
Purnell may as well hand in his notice now and run for Labour leader!
Actually I realise I have very likely lost my fiver but it would not surprise me at all if he is Labour leader one day. Labour turning to David Miliband would be guilt by association, Purnell is the ideal choice for DM supporters.
O/T - REMINDER
Nigel - in order to settle our bet, NatWest requires me to enter the name of your account on their authorisation form ...... i.e. this is a required field. Please email this to me at: peterfromputney@gmail.com
Actually Peter I have a better idea, can you donate it to the PB site please.
JohnZims Well Umunna will have to win Labour Party members and trade union members to become leader in the first place, so to even have become leader he will have to have convinced enough he is suitable
My take on the licence fee is that it needs scraping and replacing, not because of some ideological reason, it is because now it is totally unenforceable.
Long gone are the days when we all huddle around the moving picture box of an evening to select a programme to watch from one of 4 channels. If you don't want to pay for your licence fee, there is virtually nothing anybody can do. Detection / enforcement is basically impossible unless you are a total moron.
I've got little time for Lord Sugar, but that resignation letter reads pitch-perfect. It expresses regret, says he has no desire to harm the party, gives his reasoning, and says he will continue to work in the Lords.
@michaelsavage: Jon Cruddas resigns from shadow Cabinet to begin inquest into Labour's defeat. An initial report will be prepared for Labour conference.
My take on the licence fee is that it needs scraping and replacing, not because of some ideological reason, it is because now it is totally unenforceable.
Long gone are the days when we all huddle around the moving picture box of an evening to select a programme to watch from one of 4 channels. If you don't want to pay for your licence fee, there is virtually nothing anybody can do. Detection / enforcement is basically impossible unless you are a total moron.
The point has been made that the BBC does bind the UK together by providing a 'shared experience' and that its fate was part of the Scottish Independence debate.
It would be good not to totally scrap it but to make it more focussed and cost efficient.
Moniker/Watford Rubbish, exactly the same was said about Obama in 2008 and 2012 that he was too metrosexual and metropolitan and liberal to win. But he did win by winning in the suburbs and amongst ethnic minorities
The idea Labour needs to win gritty small towns is also mistaken, they need to win the cities and at least tie the suburbs. Eg in 2008 Obama won urban areas 63-35, led McCain in the suburbs 50-48 and lost rural areas 53-45. In 2012 Obama won big cities (population 500,000 or more) 69-29, mid-sized cities (population 50-500,000) 58-40. The suburbs were tied with Romney leading by just 50-48. Obama lost towns (population 10,000-50,000) to Romney by 56-42 and rural areas by 67-31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
The problem is the House of Commons shares far more in common with the House of representatives than the electoral college. And taking aside gerrymandering, that shows you the impact of Obama's presidency. His coalition of the young, minorities and urban translates into an EC victory but a disaster in the HoR.
Labour under Chuka would pile up votes in London, and lose the Midlands marginals (probably the English equivalent to Missouri).
Can anyone access Lord Sugar's statement? It looks like the world and his wife are trying to do so, and the server is down.
The gist is that he was very unhappy at Labour's anti-business stance.
Should he maybe not have stepped down before when Ed was giving it the "big business is evil" routine or wait until he sees who Labour get as a new leader? You never know they might elect somebody who is pro business?
@michaelsavage: Jon Cruddas resigns from shadow Cabinet to begin inquest into Labour's defeat. An initial report will be prepared for Labour conference.
@wallaceme: Sorry, Chris Leslie - CHRIS LESLIE - is Shadow Chancellor?? This isn't a different Chris Leslie, right? #reshuffle
Is this the same Chris Leslie, that if you have might have £100k donation but rather concerned about policy direction is, is extremely keen to meet you?
@GuidoFawkes: New shadow chancellor Chris Leslie has never had a job in the private sector. Was Gordon Brown's leadership campaign manager. #SameOldLabour
Comments
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/597710129337921536
Nigel - in order to settle our bet, NatWest requires me to enter the name of your account on their authorisation form ...... i.e. this is a required field.
Please email this to me at: peterfromputney@gmail.com
Furthermore, in the days when I paid a licence fee I did so pretty much exclusively so that my children could watch Spongebob Squarepants and Futurama on Sky, so had the licence fee been abolished that would effectively have been a £145 reduction in my Sky subscription, so Sky could have doubled their actual sub and I would still be in the money. I suspect that lots and lots of other people pay the licence fee without ever watching a single minute of BBC output.
If we had to pay £120 pa for nhs and would be prosecuted or unable to receive treatment if we didn't there would be an outrage
In the event, Labour easily held the seat. The Conservatives were second.
'A by-election in Coventry NW would be delicious - our Geoffrey actually managed to reduce his share of the vote last week in a safe Labour seat. Parachuting in Ed Balls would be suicide for Labour and they're not likely to do it!'
It would be a gift for UKIP.
And how do you know that somebody might not think hey there is a market in such and such programme type if the BBC didn't do it?
An example that comes to mind is the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. BBC originally showed them, BBC said couldn't justify continuing to show them. C4 then took over and showed them live for the first time. When their contract came to an end, C5 stepped in. They are now back on the BBC.
I highly doubt they make huge amounts of money for C4 or C5, but they were on either of those channels for 10 years. They didn't just die, because the BBC said they didn't want to continue showing them.
All my viewing is ITV or one of those Freesat genre ones where 99 % of content is US or Canadian. I subscribe to Netflix too and a couple of us networks like CBS. It's much better value than BBC
"But the Libdems also had MP's elected right across the UK when they were the third party, so this could well scupper the hopes of the SNP to be automatically awarded a weekly questions slot at PMQ's. "
It is this sort of curmudgeonly attitude that guarantees the loss of your beloved Union-keep it up :-)
One argument I heard was that a fee makes it harder for the sitting government to intimidate them than if they were getting funded out of taxation, but I'm not convinced about that since the government can vary the amount they're allowed to charge instead. And Japan has a similar system, but the current government seems to have had very little trouble making NHK its bitch.
And yes, UKIP activists are not yet good at sampling during the counts.
Regular readers may recall my unfashionable but long-standing admiration for Michael Gove, bravely rattling the cage of the teaching profession and not caring whose nose he puts out of joint while doing so.
Now that he has become Secretary of State for Justice, I now realise he is nothing but an unprincipled wrecker, idiotically forcing through misguided changes against the counsel of wiser figures. Apologies for any different impression I may have given in the past.
' That'll put a lot of media folk out of work (boo hoo), but it will also put a lot of extra financial pressure on the likes of Sky, ITV and many of the internet-providers. And we will all end up paying more. '
More competition leading to higher prices, a new economic theory ?
But it wasn't an unnecessary by-election like it would be Coventry NW. I would certainly feel pissed if I were a Coventry voter and Robinson resigns after 1 week
More evidence Mediterranean immigrants driven by material desires not fear for their lives, and putting their own and other's lives in danger in the process.
I am not claiming anything will die. I am just saying that if the BBC is competing for advertising and subscription revenue its decisions will be commercially driven and that will affect the programming it offers - on TV, radio and online.
A free media is the bedrock of an open society. We will deliver a comprehensive review of the BBC Royal Charter, ensuring it delivers value for money for the licence fee payer, while maintaining a world class service and supporting our creative industries. That is why we froze the BBC licence fee and will keep it frozen, pending Charter renewal. And we will continue to ‘topslice’ the licence fee for digital infrastructure to support superfast broadband across the country.
It's worth remembering that the Blair government seriously considered ending or radically changing the licence-fee model at the time of the last Charter renewal. The main reason was the changed technological environment, which meant a model designed for a time when there were just a handful of national TV stations, and no internet, was no longer appropriate. In the end they did renew it without major changes, but they did warn that it was likely that that would be the last time.
I watch far more than 2 programmes a week. But 99% of it comes from the US - I watch the occasionally UK show - "No Offence" was the latest whether I watch another episode of it I don't know. Like Ms Plato I watch a lot of american TV via various means, although sky is gradually getting teh hint that showing stuff immediately is the best option.
Recently/Curently watching:
NCIS
NCIS NOLA
NCIS LA
Hawaii 5 0
Blue Bloods
Criminal Minds
Black List
Forever (cancelled wtf)
Sleepy Hollow
Mentalist (finished)
Rizzoli & Isles
Perception
Elementary
The Following
Given up on:
Bones
Once upon a time
Supernatural
Note that none of the above is shown on BBC...
I wonder if there has been some sort of hiccup?
'The sheer complacency of Alanbrooke and Charles on Chuka is rather ridiculous, many commentators believed Obama could never win Middle America, but he did'
Can't imagine a Savile Row socialist with his Chukka Harrison twitter comments would go down a bundle with the comrades.
What is impossible to know is where it is that other media outlets aren't currently competing with the BBC because they don't think there is a dime in it, when it is because the BBC dominates making it impossible to make a dime or that they think the market is already well served.
In terms of tv, I would say regional programming is the more likely the former and kids programmes the later. But when it comes to radio, a combination of broadcasting license regulations and the massive presence of the BBC, makes competing very very difficult.
One other thought....regional programming and channels aren't dead in the US, despite the massive power of the mega networks. Also, with the internet, if anybody has seen twitch, you can now broadcast to niche markets and make money very easily and there are some channels on there that are very very professional. I believe google / youtube are going to roll out something similar.
The idea Labour needs to win gritty small towns is also mistaken, they need to win the cities and at least tie the suburbs. Eg in 2008 Obama won urban areas 63-35, led McCain in the suburbs 50-48 and lost rural areas 53-45. In 2012 Obama won big cities (population 500,000 or more) 69-29, mid-sized cities (population 50-500,000) 58-40. The suburbs were tied with Romney leading by just 50-48. Obama lost towns (population 10,000-50,000) to Romney by 56-42 and rural areas by 67-31.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
Take a look at @TerrorizerMir's Tweet: https://twitter.com/TerrorizerMir/status/597708881314390017?s=09
@GuidoFawkes: Big diss for Liz Kendall from Harman. She's not given a proper Shad Cab job: http://t.co/8aukLEhqHz
The howls of anger from luvvies would only make it sweeter.
The next leader needs to consider walking barefoot to Canossa.
Chris Leslie - Shadow Chancellor
Emma Reynolds - Shadow DCLG
Lord Faulkner - Shadow Justice
Shabana Mahmood - Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Long gone are the days when we all huddle around the moving picture box of an evening to select a programme to watch from one of 4 channels. If you don't want to pay for your licence fee, there is virtually nothing anybody can do. Detection / enforcement is basically impossible unless you are a total moron.
It would be good not to totally scrap it but to make it more focussed and cost efficient.
Chris Bryant MP
Labour under Chuka would pile up votes in London, and lose the Midlands marginals (probably the English equivalent to Missouri).
The BBC's got big problems heading their way. They'd be wise to remember that Whittingdale isn't the cause of them.
Horrible woman. At Oxford with me and always one eye on, well, this.
I liked her most for protesting the kosher food aisle in my local tescos, though.