I had missed the illiberal smearing that Farron engaged with over the SNP. "There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay. He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them". http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
Farron is echoing the SNP Bad line of both the Tories and Labour, however with the SNP now pushing towards 60% in the polls, if anything this line of attack is only driving forward the SNP surge. The mainstream parties need to change tactics and quick or Holyrood 2016 isn't going to be pretty.
I think Farron should be cleaning out his own Scottish stables before casting stones at the SNP. Personally I don't care if the LibDems choose political annihilation in Scotland by not facing up to the reality of the Carmichael situation - but surely the results of the poll below must carry some weight with Farron:
" The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15% "
In a nutshell - 71% of voters are wrong - arrogance personified. This coming from a party with 25 Scottish unelected peers with no doubt more to come in the diss hons list.
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and give them some momentum for May 2016 Council and Scottish elections.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
Is it just coincidence that this 'believing they are doing the right thing' that vile specimens like IDS barrel on with always seem to coincidentally benefit the richest and most powerful in society?
Maybe he's wrong, but I'm sure that even if he is he believes it. What he and other Tories do not do is intentionally inflict suffering for no reason other than hate for the poor, which is an accusation which gets bandied about. Millions of people, including many poor people, would not vote for the Tories if they were a bunch of sadists.
Why? It's a load of carp, as you'd expect from that joke of a site only read by frothing rightist extremists like yourself. I'm not a Labour supporter either, as I have said many times. I think that the evidence that Tories are the avowed enemies of everything decent and civilised about humanity is incontrovertible though.
You carry on thinking that. We'll just carry on doing the difficult stuff. Like governing.
PS. In the last line of your post, try replacing "Tories" with "blacks" or "gays" or "Jews" - and think on about the level of hatred that underpins your priggish, self-satisfied, self-righteous view of the world.
The Left - the last bastion of uncriminalised hatred in this country....
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
You need to read this:
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
There is a staggeringly revealing comment made just below the thread header on that page.
"Labour is the party of the masses and has been so for the last 90 years. There is nothing undemocratic about rearranging our constitution like Sweden or Japan, so that Labour, or a Labour-led coalition, forms the perpetual government – perpetual so long as Labour doesn’t lose its position as the only mass party, and that is the great democratic check and balance."
I am not quite sure how getting less than 19% of the electorate to vote for them makes Labour 'the party of the masses'.
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
What you're after is a middle-class subsidy for art you deem worthy, paid for disproportionately from the pockets of lower-income groups who never then consume it. It's morally indefensible. It's also - as MD points out - a London subsidy paid for by the rest of the country.
In any case, the funding of arts barely touches the debate about the BBC, which is a dominant player in various media markets, which has significant structural advantages (and would continue to do so even without a Charter or taxing rights), and which is as such, in no need of a subsidy for worthy causes.
Artists who want to be funded to pursue their whims should do what artists have always done: find a rich sponsor and/or an appreciative audience.
Why? It's a load of carp, as you'd expect from that joke of a site only read by frothing rightist extremists like yourself. I'm not a Labour supporter either, as I have said many times. I think that the evidence that Tories are the avowed enemies of everything decent and civilised about humanity is incontrovertible though.
You still need to read this:
"Because our arrogance has the effect of stopping us listening. In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right. It makes us believe that if people don’t agree with us then they are either less moral or need educating. "
Is it just coincidence that this 'believing they are doing the right thing' that vile specimens like IDS barrel on with always seem to coincidentally benefit the richest and most powerful in society?
I had missed the illiberal smearing that Farron engaged with over the SNP. "There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay. He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them". http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
A nasty little slimeball and obviously not the full shilling if he imagines the li(e)berals will provide any challenge to the SNP.
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
You need to read this:
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
There is a staggeringly revealing comment made just below the thread header on that page.
"Labour is the party of the masses and has been so for the last 90 years. There is nothing undemocratic about rearranging our constitution like Sweden or Japan, so that Labour, or a Labour-led coalition, forms the perpetual government – perpetual so long as Labour doesn’t lose its position as the only mass party, and that is the great democratic check and balance."
I am not quite sure how getting less than 19% of the electorate to vote for them makes Labour 'the party of the masses'.
Because they say they are, seems simple enough. One doesn't need to be of the people to be for the people, so why not go even further and just say you're for the people, right, that' s just as good.
The idea that PB Tories, notorious for almost superhuman lack of self-awareness, can lecture anyone on arrogance is astonishing in its circular irony.
The idea that you are calling out others for lack of self awareness when being critical of another party while making extremely broad criticisms of another party is, I would argue, even more astonishing. I've never voted Tory, if it helps bolster my case.
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... None of the policies implemented so far are a surprise.
Case in point is the BBC. When the exit poll came through at around five minutes to ten on 7th May, leftie Jeremy Vine was supposed to have said something like: "That's Scotland and the BBC Gone".
EVEL and BBC reform was well advertised before the election.
ICYMI - hopefully they won't be there for non-payment of TVLFs
Prisoners who work hard for qualifications while behind bars could be allowed to leave prison early under an “earned release” scheme, the justice secretary, Michael Gove, will suggest.
In his first major speech on prisons policy, Gove is due to say that more can be done to provide the right incentives for prisoners to learn, as well as calling for prison staff to give a higher priority to the education of those behind bars.
The justice secretary has asked his department look at how a system of earned release could operate in detail. It is likely to apply to most of the 86,000 prisoners who are serving fixed-term sentences and are currently automatically released when they reach the halfway point.
Good on Michael Gove. Many Tories have taken on the role of prison reform- Hurd, Aitken etc.. It seems that Gove is putting his considerable intellect and reforming zeal to good purpose.
I think that anyone who starts from a position that challenges the idea that people are 'born bad' has to agree with the idea that prison must be about reform as well as punishment/protection of society.
I hope Gove succeeds at least to some extent with his ideas because, even though I doubt he can make a radical difference in the next 4 or 5 years, he could make enough of a difference that his successors take the theory and the practice seriously and so continue it after he has gone.
Why? It's a load of carp, as you'd expect from that joke of a site only read by frothing rightist extremists like yourself. I'm not a Labour supporter either, as I have said many times. I think that the evidence that Tories are the avowed enemies of everything decent and civilised about humanity is incontrovertible though.
Mister Wisemann:
My surname does not reflect me at all. Glad you suffer from the same affliction.
Having wrested from Westminster a promise of vast new powers for the Scottish Parliament, it has sold itself to Scots as at once the hammer of Westminster, which is plausible, and the aggrieved party to a great betrayal, which is not. To counter this, Mr Cameron needs to alert Scots, perhaps by holding a referendum on further devolution, to a truth they seem ignorant of. Their devolved government will soon have power to raise half its revenues, which will mean a corresponding loss in the subsidy it draws from English taxpayers, and, in turn, probably higher taxes. If they like that, they should rush to independence; if not, they might care tae think again.
In short: grow-a-pair or shut-the-feck-up.
In short talking bollox, all our cash goes to London and we get a meagre portion back after the shysters have pilfered it. The imaginary rubbish of making up a tax number to say we get 50% of it is just a fantasy that idiots like you can use as an excuse. The only subsidy is us to London.
I had missed the illiberal smearing that Farron engaged with over the SNP. "There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay. He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them". http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
A nasty little slimeball and obviously not the full shilling if he imagines the li(e)berals will provide any challenge to the SNP.
A man can dream I suppose. The SNP had best watch out, before they know it the HolyRood elections in 2032 will see their dominance challenged!
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
I'm sure I recall Channel 5 having an army of technicians who had to come into your home and change your telly settings when it was first launched.
Channel 5.
So Channel 5 could do something at start-up that the mighty Beeb can't do eh? The Beeb could put a box in every household if it turned its mind to it. It just doesn't want to even think those nasty thoughts.
The digital switchover involved people getting new STBs within the last five years (actually ending in 2012). Fortunately, many people had already bought them, so the BBC spent only £300 million providing the elderly and disabled with boxes (actually and thankfully a massive underspend). This money came out of the licence fee.
A switchover to a subscription system will involve yet more new boxes. Worse, people with the boxes integrated into the TV will find they are useless.
Then there is the question of which conditional access system to use. Will they share one with (say) Freeview, will it be a bespoke system, or an existing one (e.g. NDS, Cisco, SystemGuard, MediaGuard etc). This will lead to many complexities with the competing broadcast systems.
For instance, if they went with NDS it might be possible to have one box that would allow access to both Sky and BBC products on the same box, either with a combined smartcard or separate ones (if the latter, you would either need to swap cards or have two slots, increasing cost).
It's a crying shame CA was not added to the STB's for the digital switchover.
It's doable, but not cheap or easy.
The Beeb loves the challenge of a project that isn't cheap and isn't easy....
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
You need to read this:
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
There is a staggeringly revealing comment made just below the thread header on that page.
"Labour is the party of the masses and has been so for the last 90 years. There is nothing undemocratic about rearranging our constitution like Sweden or Japan, so that Labour, or a Labour-led coalition, forms the perpetual government – perpetual so long as Labour doesn’t lose its position as the only mass party, and that is the great democratic check and balance."
I am not quite sure how getting less than 19% of the electorate to vote for them makes Labour 'the party of the masses'.
You don't think that's obviously a joke?
If you actually read the site regularly you would realise that no it is not. There really are people that arrogant and stupid.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias".
I think this hits the nail on the head. Many are explicit that this is a primary reason for wanting change, which rather undermines good reasons for changes. Of course, everything political parties propose is spun by opponents as being for some malicious purpose if it is not obviously malevolent in act (if it cannot be portrayed as both), and the Tories in particular face that type of accusation quite often, but on this issue the sense that any proposals will be filtered through the prism of wanting 'payback' has been given substance by many proponents of change.
That is true and it's a shame. Even so, whatever the motivation of those who put a case forward, ultimately that case will stand or fall on its own merits.
As I imply in the intro, I like quite a lot of what the BBC does. It is, despite its liberal-left bias, my first port of call for news and its website is very good compared with competitors. However, there are faults that need addressing and its entire needs future-proofing as far as possible. These are two separate, but related, challenges and that's where the politics starts to intervene. Still, it's also precisely what the current debates about so it's not only legitimate but to be encouraged to discuss those issues.
I grew up next to Bradford, which was once the wool capital of the world and a wealthy city. It's now a dump. The main reason was a desire to hold on to an industry which technology and a changing market had rendered unsustainable. Instead of using its advantage in existing markets to get ahead of the game in the newly developing ones, it sat complacently on its self-assumed throne, dismissing those new industries as of no threat. It was a vast mistake. The BBC is in a similar position. Without change, it could easily be left in 10 or 15 years looking back at a series of empty buildings, still wondering 'what happened?'.
I had missed the illiberal smearing that Farron engaged with over the SNP. "There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay. He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them". http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
Farron is echoing the SNP Bad line of both the Tories and Labour, however with the SNP now pushing towards 60% in the polls, if anything this line of attack is only driving forward the SNP surge. The mainstream parties need to change tactics and quick or Holyrood 2016 isn't going to be pretty.
I think Farron should be cleaning out his own Scottish stables before casting stones at the SNP. Personally I don't care if the LibDems choose political annihilation in Scotland by not facing up to the reality of the Carmichael situation - but surely the results of the poll below must carry some weight with Farron:
" The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15% "
In a nutshell - 71% of voters are wrong - arrogance personified. This coming from a party with 25 Scottish unelected peers with no doubt more to come in the diss hons list.
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and give them some momentum for May 2016 Council and Scottish elections.
Wonder if the crooks will ever pay the £800K outstanding police bill that they welched on.
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
Is it just coincidence that this 'believing they are doing the right thing' that vile specimens like IDS barrel on with always seem to coincidentally benefit the richest and most powerful in society?
Maybe he's wrong, but I'm sure that even if he is he believes it. What he and other Tories do not do is intentionally inflict suffering for no reason other than hate for the poor, which is an accusation which gets bandied about. Millions of people, including many poor people, would not vote for the Tories if they were a bunch of sadists.
They just do it from an ideology viewpoint and don't really believe they are nasty gits just misunderstood.
Why? It's a load of carp, as you'd expect from that joke of a site only read by frothing rightist extremists like yourself. I'm not a Labour supporter either, as I have said many times. I think that the evidence that Tories are the avowed enemies of everything decent and civilised about humanity is incontrovertible though.
You carry on thinking that. We'll just carry on doing the difficult stuff. Like governing.
PS. In the last line of your post, try replacing "Tories" with "blacks" or "gays" or "Jews" - and think on about the level of hatred that underpins your priggish, self-satisfied, self-righteous view of the world.
The Left - the last bastion of uncriminalised hatred in this country....
LOL, they could not run a bath, only skill they have is lining theirs and their chums pockets.
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
There, hopefully that will cut short that avenue.
Exactly , they have free hand to do what they want for the term as long as they can hold their own MPs together, people just have to suck it up.
Mr. Tyson, there's an issue with an organisation that has a near monopoly on radio and predominance in TV, as well as online.
I don't want the BBC gutted or abolished, but nor do I want it to have such a privileged position. It also needs to reform funding, because the licence fee is unsustainable in the long term and the sooner that's changed the better for the BBC.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato (after this post), I hope ColinW's Mum returns at some point. She was full of wisdom.
Hmmm- the quality of BBC radio is outstanding, utterly outstanding- I guess this is why it is so dominant. The BBC is the go to media outlet in many areas because it is so good at what it does. It raises the bar for others to follow. It drives up standards across the board. Without its privileged position this would not happen. Diminish the BBC and let's see a rush to the bottom.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
Funnily enough I was reading the thread about the BBC at the same time and was trying to clarify in my own mind what the Proms - which I love - imply about the BBC and its role as a public service boadcaster. I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
I wonder how many of those stars writing letters of support for the BBC as a priceless institution would still be happy to appear for free or for a very small fee because the BBC is so important to the nation? Surely they could make their millions on other commercial channels whilst giving a small amount of their time to support the BBC?
Mr. Tyson, there's an issue with an organisation that has a near monopoly on radio and predominance in TV, as well as online.
I don't want the BBC gutted or abolished, but nor do I want it to have such a privileged position. It also needs to reform funding, because the licence fee is unsustainable in the long term and the sooner that's changed the better for the BBC.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato (after this post), I hope ColinW's Mum returns at some point. She was full of wisdom.
Hmmm- the quality of BBC radio is outstanding, utterly outstanding- I guess this is why it is so dominant. The BBC is the go to media outlet in many areas because it is so good at what it does. It raises the bar for others to follow. It drives up standards across the board. Without its privileged position this would not happen. Diminish the BBC and let's see a rush to the bottom.
You obviously are not tortured by Radio Scotland then.
The piece on Labour uncut is accurate, but most Labour supporters are much more easy-going.
I remember being at University when the Beatles 'Revolution'was getting airplay. The student Dave Sparts hated it, particularly ... "But when you want money for people with minds that hate, All I can tell you is brother you have to wait."
One leftie stood up and called Lennon a "class enemy" and other ruder insults. Yes, I thought, you're just proving the lyrics are right.
It's the same with any extremist. They know they're right and the other side are fools, and worse than that, they're dangerous fools, so any sort of opposition is justified.
I think that Labour are hurting at the moment, so the loons are coming out of the woodwork.
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dcare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something , hopefully that will cut short that avenue
The idea that PB Tories, notorious for almost superhuman lack of self-awareness, can lecture anyone on arrogance is astonishing in its circular irony.
Except it's a member of the Labour party saying it. Otherwise spot on comrade
One thing I've learned, not least from being accused of being a secret Tory once or twice, is that being said by a Labour member does not matter - if it is enjoyed or approved of by a Tory, the idea is as ridiculous as though the Tory had come up with it.
This does however apply in the other direction of course, unless we are to pretend Ed M could have proposed something good and certain segments would automatically have dismissed it until Osborne or Cameron adopted the same idea.
Is it just coincidence that this 'believing they are doing the right thing' that vile specimens like IDS barrel on with always seem to coincidentally benefit the richest and most powerful in society?
Maybe he's wrong, but I'm sure that even if he is he believes it. What he and other Tories do not do is intentionally inflict suffering for no reason other than hate for the poor, which is an accusation which gets bandied about. Millions of people, including many poor people, would not vote for the Tories if they were a bunch of sadists.
They just do it from an ideology viewpoint and don't really believe they are nasty gits just misunderstood.
Well, sure. The point being, maybe they are making decisions which are really really nasty, people can quibble about that, but if people think that is the case, I don't really see what it adds to think they are getting erections out of causing the resulting suffering as well. The fact of the suffering, if it is occurring, is condemnation enough of the action.
I said absolutely the same thing as you two threads back - I thought the BBC piece was dreadful journalism. The Daily Mail surprisingly did a much better job (something like "Fears over 50 children...." rather than the stark claim that just because 50 children were seen going on a flight with their parents at the start of the summer holidays they were automatically all getting FGM).
SeanT ripped me a new hole over it because I refused to jump on the outrage train.
Wasn't there a slightly off colour quip in there, Mr MBE? I agree with your points entirely though.
The European External Action Service, the EU’s foreign office, will buy a “sparkling” array of crystal glassware, silver cutlery and fine china to host banquets and dinner parties for visiting dignitaries, the Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The tableware – to cater for up to 3,360 officials and guests at the EEAS' Brussels headquarters and 140 embassies around the world – will come embellished with the Flag of Europe, engraved on the drinking glasses and painted in gold on the “top quality” crockery.
The dinner service, which stands to be larger and nearly ten times the cost of one recently purchased for the White House, marks the coming of age of the EEAS as a fully-fledged diplomatic corps.
Created by the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, it is headed by High Representative Federica Mogherini, a former Young Communist who became the Italian Foreign Minister. The service has a staff of 3,400, a budget of 793 million euros (£550 million) and outposts covering the Seychelles, Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
Funnily enough I was reading the thread about the BBC at the same time and was trying to clarify in my own mind what the Proms - which I love - imply about the BBC and its role as a public service boadcaster. I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
I wonder how many of those stars writing letters of support for the BBC as a priceless institution would still be happy to appear for free or for a very small fee because the BBC is so important to the nation? Surely they could make their millions on other commercial channels whilst giving a small amount of their time to support the BBC?
The trouble is if the BBC did not attempt to make mass appeal programmes that also carry considerable risk of failure then no one else will. ITV would never have made Sherlock - too edgy, too risky, too much of an untried approach to an old story. By setting the bar high like this the commercial stations have to raise their own game.
ICYMI - hopefully they won't be there for non-payment of TVLFs
Prisoners who work hard for qualifications while behind bars could be allowed to leave prison early under an “earned release” scheme, the justice secretary, Michael Gove, will suggest.
In his first major speech on prisons policy, Gove is due to say that more can be done to provide the right incentives for prisoners to learn, as well as calling for prison staff to give a higher priority to the education of those behind bars.
The justice secretary has asked his department look at how a system of earned release could operate in detail. It is likely to apply to most of the 86,000 prisoners who are serving fixed-term sentences and are currently automatically released when they reach the halfway point.
Good on Michael Gove. Many Tories have taken on the role of prison reform- Hurd, Aitken etc.. It seems that Gove is putting his considerable intellect and reforming zeal to good purpose.
I think that anyone who starts from a position that challenges the idea that people are 'born bad' has to agree with the idea that prison must be about reform as well as punishment/protection of society.
I hope Gove succeeds at least to some extent with his ideas because, even though I doubt he can make a radical difference in the next 4 or 5 years, he could make enough of a difference that his successors take the theory and the practice seriously and so continue it after he has gone.
I've worked in prisons and the number of genuinely bad people I came across was tiny. The prisons are mostly full of people suffering from addictions or mental health problems (usually both) and who have experienced traumatic childhoods.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias".
I think this hits the nail on the head. Many are explicit that this is a primary reason for wanting change, which rather undermines good reasons for changes. Of course, everything political parties propose is spun by opponents as being for some malicious purpose if it is not obviously malevolent in act (if it cannot be portrayed as both), and the Tories in particular face that type of accusation quite often, but on this issue the sense that any proposals will be filtered through the prism of wanting 'payback' has been given substance by many proponents of change.
That is true and it's a shame. Even so, whatever the motivation of those who put a case forward, ultimately that case will stand or fall on its own merits.
I think you have a more optimistic opinion of how ultimately the genuine merits, or not, win out, than I do. I'm certainly not opposed to a debate and even massive changes to the BBC, though the stated or intended outcome of any review, what sort of BBC is wanted out of this, is indelibly tied up with the motivations of people imposing changes I suspect, and so a poor solution will probably result.
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
There, hopefully that will cut short that avenue.
The precise words in the manifesto are:
"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."
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
Herdson speaking a lot of sense about the BBC. I know from previous reviews that the BBC have done that they've been petrified of moving away from the licence-fee model, but it has to be done. But, assuming that they start showing adverts (apart perhaps from BBC1 peak times), what would the shortfall be? I think I'd be happy for this to come out of general taxation (and lottery money?) rather than subscription.
Why? It's a load of carp, as you'd expect from that joke of a site only read by frothing rightist extremists like yourself. I'm not a Labour supporter either, as I have said many times. I think that the evidence that Tories are the avowed enemies of everything decent and civilised about humanity is incontrovertible though.
You still need to read this:
"Because our arrogance has the effect of stopping us listening. In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right. It makes us believe that if people don’t agree with us then they are either less moral or need educating. "
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
There, hopefully that will cut short that avenue.
The precise words in the manifesto are:
"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."
Seems pretty broad, could allow for many things - but in any case manifestos seem more like jumping off points than anything concrete when they are that woolly (a 'comprehensive review' could come back suggesting any manner of things after all).
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
Funnily enough I was reading the thread about the BBC at the same time and was trying to clarify in my own mind what the Proms - which I love - imply about the BBC and its role as a public service boadcaster. I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
I wonder how many of those stars writing letters of support for the BBC as a priceless institution would still be happy to appear for free or for a very small fee because the BBC is so important to the nation? Surely they could make their millions on other commercial channels whilst giving a small amount of their time to support the BBC?
The trouble is if the BBC did not attempt to make mass appeal programmes that also carry considerable risk of failure then no one else will. ITV would never have made Sherlock - too edgy, too risky, too much of an untried approach to an old story. By setting the bar high like this the commercial stations have to raise their own game.
I disagree. There are plenty of edgy risky programmes being made by other channels.
Besides the issue is not whether the programme 'becomes' successful. I am not saying the BBC should only do stuff that has no chance of ever becoming mass market. I am saying it should not do stuff that is assured of being mass market - soap operas, reality shows, daytime TV - the sort of stuff that is done just as well if not better by other stations.
Go and look at the BBC1 schedule for today and tell me what there is there that could not be done just as well by another channel or would qualify as public service broadcasting.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
Funnily enough I was reading the thread about the BBC at the same time and was trying to clarify in my own mind what the Proms - which I love - imply about the BBC and its role as a public service boadcaster. I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
...
If there is a case to be made for a public-subsidy, 'it's good for you' service then it *has* to be a vastly smaller one. You cannot levy a regressive poll tax on virtually the entire nation in order to provide stuff not many want to watch. That really would destroy the BBC as we know it.
And that's why I disagree with those who advocate that solution. It's not that the Beeb shouldn't get involved in classical music or niche dramas or whatever but overall it should serve its viewers and listeners the same as any other media organisation. A genuinely independent, self-sufficient organisation would, in many ways, be no different from other companies and as such shouldn't be treated any differently. Let it make The Voice and Strictly and so on (neither of which I watch but millions of others do). But in another way, it would remain distinct, not only because of its history but because if it were a mutual, owned and accountable to its members, then it would (I hope) retain a culture distinct from the world of shareholder-owned producers - and that diversity is important.
I had missed the illiberal smearing that Farron engaged with over the SNP. "There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay. He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them". http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
Farron is echoing the SNP Bad line of both the Tories and Labour, however with the SNP now pushing towards 60% in the polls, if anything this line of attack is only driving forward the SNP surge. The mainstream parties need to change tactics and quick or Holyrood 2016 isn't going to be pretty.
I think Farron should be cleaning out his own Scottish stables before casting stones at the SNP. Personally I don't care if the LibDems choose political annihilation in Scotland by not facing up to the reality of the Carmichael situation - but surely the results of the poll below must carry some weight with Farron:
" The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15% "
In a nutshell - 71% of voters are wrong - arrogance personified. This coming from a party with 25 Scottish unelected peers with no doubt more to come in the diss hons list.
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and give them some momentum for May 2016 Council and Scottish elections.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
Funnily enough I was reading the thread about the BBC at the same time and was trying to clarify in my own mind what the Proms - which I love - imply about the BBC and its role as a public service boadcaster. I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
...
If there is a case to be made for a public-subsidy, 'it's good for you' service then it *has* to be a vastly smaller one. You cannot levy a regressive poll tax on virtually the entire nation in order to provide stuff not many want to watch. That really would destroy the BBC as we know it.
And that's why I disagree with those who advocate that solution. It's not that the Beeb shouldn't get involved in classical music or niche dramas or whatever but overall it should serve its viewers and listeners the same as any other media organisation. A genuinely independent, self-sufficient organisation would, in many ways, be no different from other companies and as such shouldn't be treated any differently. Let it make The Voice and Strictly and so on (neither of which I watch but millions of others do). But in another way, it would remain distinct, not only because of its history but because if it were a mutual, owned and accountable to its members, then it would (I hope) retain a culture distinct from the world of shareholder-owned producers - and that diversity is important.
I would have thought that the idea of a vastly smaller service was implicit in what I was suggesting. Just making it like any other channel - even if a mutually owned version - would destroy any vestiges of public service broadcasting - the one bit I think is worth retaining.
Once the BBC is "dealt with" what should the government do when Rupert Murdoch relaunches his bid to take over Sky?
If you're concerned with the BBC dominating market-share, I don't see why you'd want that for Murdoch tbh. In which case, I don't see Murdoch taking over Sky, in any case. Just like I don't see everyone, uncritically agreeing with everything the Tories day and do, believe it or not....
A state broadcaster should only broadcast what is in the public interest. Impartial news and current affairs, national events, prestigious sporting events and educational programming. There are plenty of other channels chucking out entertainment of varying quality to keep everyone happy.
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
There, hopefully that will cut short that avenue.
The precise words in the manifesto are:
"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."
Seems pretty broad, could allow for many things - but in any case manifestos seem more like jumping off points than anything concrete when they are that woolly (a 'comprehensive review' could come back suggesting any manner of things after all).
True, but 'licence fee payer' doesn't appear to suggest anything radical r.e. funding, and the review appears to be more directed towards the quality of the service the BBC provides.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias".
I think this hits the nail on the head. Many are explicit that this is a primary reason for wanting change, which rather undermines good reasons for changes. Of course, everything political parties propose is spun by opponents as being for some malicious purpose if it is not obviously malevolent in act (if it cannot be portrayed as both), and the Tories in particular face that type of accusation quite often, but on this issue the sense that any proposals will be filtered through the prism of wanting 'payback' has been given substance by many proponents of change.
That is true and it's a shame. Even so, whatever the motivation of those who put a case forward, ultimately that case will stand or fall on its own merits.
I think you have a more optimistic opinion of how ultimately the genuine merits, or not, win out, than I do. I'm certainly not opposed to a debate and even massive changes to the BBC, though the stated or intended outcome of any review, what sort of BBC is wanted out of this, is indelibly tied up with the motivations of people imposing changes I suspect, and so a poor solution will probably result.
Yes, I probably worded my reply badly. What I meant was that whatever decision is taken - and as you point out, these can be taken for any number of reasons - that solution will develop a life of its own, distinct from the motivation of whoever originally put it forward. In other words, say someone puts an idea forward with the intention of diminishing the Beeb's reach (for sake of argument) but that their thinking is flawed or incomplete and it would actually improve its chances, why wouldn't its supporters jump on that proposal?
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
There, hopefully that will cut short that avenue.
The precise words in the manifesto are:
"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."
Seems pretty broad, could allow for many things - but in any case manifestos seem more like jumping off points than anything concrete when they are that woolly (a 'comprehensive review' could come back suggesting any manner of things after all).
True, but 'licence fee payer' doesn't appear to suggest anything radical r.e. funding, and the review appears to be more directed towards the quality of the service the BBC provides.
If the 'review' determined there was no way within the licence fee model to provide value for money (if it was unsustainable for instance) then it might conclude it had to go, though I'd agree the wording does lean more toward less extreme revisions. I'm not sure why they didn't go with 'scrap the licence fee', which they could have used as a bargaining counter in the expected coalition negotiations, down to 'well at least we'll get a comprehensive review'.
Once the BBC is "dealt with" what should the government do when Rupert Murdoch relaunches his bid to take over Sky?
If you're concerned with the BBC dominating market-share, I don't see why you'd want that for Murdoch tbh. In which case, I don't see Murdoch taking over Sky, in any case.
Probably correct... I was just being mischievous and trying to make depressed lefties even more unhappy TBH!
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias".
I think this hits the nail on the head. Many are explicit that this is a primary reason for wanting change, which rather undermines good reasons for changes. Of course, everything political parties propose is spun by opponents as being for some malicious purpose if it is not obviously malevolent in act (if it cannot be portrayed as both), and the Tories in particular face that type of accusation quite often, but on this issue the sense that any proposals will be filtered through the prism of wanting 'payback' has been given substance by many proponents of change.
That is true and it's a shame. Even so, whatever the motivation of those who put a case forward, ultimately that case will stand or fall on its own merits.
I think you have a more optimistic opinion of how ultimately the genuine merits, or not, win out, than I do. I'm certainly not opposed to a debate and even massive changes to the BBC, though the stated or intended outcome of any review, what sort of BBC is wanted out of this, is indelibly tied up with the motivations of people imposing changes I suspect, and so a poor solution will probably result.
What I meant was that whatever decision is taken - and as you point out, these can be taken for any number of reasons - that solution will develop a life of its own, distinct from the motivation of whoever originally put it forward.
Ah, I see. Like Scottish devolution, perhaps it will lead to an even more dominant BBC, that'd be amusing.
A state broadcaster should only broadcast what is in the public interest. Impartial news and current affairs, national events, prestigious sporting events and educational programming. There are plenty of other channels chucking out entertainment of varying quality to keep everyone happy.
We have often heard that Scotland has a great history of education (albeit undermined by years of SNP governance). But riddle-me-this:
London is the wealthiest part of Her Majesty's Kingdom. So why do our usual Troupe of Jockanese Clowns still argue that they subsidise BoJo-city...?
I know you are not too bright , but I will try. They are wealthiest due to pilfering so much from the rest of the UK, money laundering and general crookedness.
A state broadcaster should only broadcast what is in the public interest. Impartial news and current affairs, national events, prestigious sporting events and educational programming. There are plenty of other channels chucking out entertainment of varying quality to keep everyone happy.
I had missed the illiberal smearing that Farron engaged with over the SNP. "There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay. He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them". http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
Farron is echoing the SNP Bad line of both the Tories and Labour, however with the SNP now pushing towards 60% in the polls, if anything this line of attack is only driving forward the SNP surge. The mainstream parties need to change tactics and quick or Holyrood 2016 isn't going to be pretty.
In a nutshell - 71% of voters are wrong - arrogance personified. This coming from a party with 25 Scottish unelected peers with no doubt more to come in the diss hons list.
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and give them some momentum for May 2016 Council and Scottish elections.
You don't half bleat on about Carmichael.
Is it any wonder , typical that we have one of Britain's top ten baddies, still as an MP. Typical of how these odious creatures enrich themselves. If they acted similarly in any other job they would be in jail. Well seen he was previously a lawyer, just needs to get a banking job after he is finally thrown out and he will have filled 3 most hated professions.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
... I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
...
If there is a case to be made for a public-subsidy, 'it's good for you' service then it *has* to be a vastly smaller one. You cannot levy a regressive poll tax on virtually the entire nation in order to provide stuff not many want to watch. That really would destroy the BBC as we know it.
And that's why I disagree with those who advocate that solution. It's not that the Beeb shouldn't get involved in classical music or niche dramas or whatever but overall it should serve its viewers and listeners the same as any other media organisation. A genuinely independent, self-sufficient organisation would, in many ways, be no different from other companies and as such shouldn't be treated any differently. Let it make The Voice and Strictly and so on (neither of which I watch but millions of others do). But in another way, it would remain distinct, not only because of its history but because if it were a mutual, owned and accountable to its members, then it would (I hope) retain a culture distinct from the world of shareholder-owned producers - and that diversity is important.
I would have thought that the idea of a vastly smaller service was implicit in what I was suggesting. Just making it like any other channel - even if a mutually owned version - would destroy any vestiges of public service broadcasting - the one bit I think is worth retaining.
It was implicit but I just wanted to be sure.
Let me turn the question around. If the BBC didn't exist, would there be a problem in creating a new mass-market broadcaster to compete with ITV, C4, Sky and the rest? Presumably not as there new broadcasters have entered the market fairly frequently over the last 20 years. So why not make use of the one that's already there?
I don't really get the bit about 'public service broadcasting' as I don't really get why the public should be served something they don't want and which would probably be of much less quality from an organisation with far less resource than today's Beeb.
Mr Wisemann, if your mental model of your opponents is such that it requires them to be cartoonishly evil, then it is extraordinarily likely to be false. Childish oversimplicity is attractive as it means one doesn't have to exert oneself to try to understand another's point of view, but it rarely produces any useful data. Such as a sensible course of action.
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... .
Even though I do not like many of the proposals in the manifesto but accept the mandate - under the present system which the public have consented to by not electing people who want to change it - to implement them, I'll save someone else the trouble and say
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
There, hopefully that will cut short that avenue.
The precise words in the manifesto are:
"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."
Seems pretty broad, could allow for many things - but in any case manifestos seem more like jumping off points than anything concrete when they are that woolly (a 'comprehensive review' could come back suggesting any manner of things after all).
True, but 'licence fee payer' doesn't appear to suggest anything radical r.e. funding, and the review appears to be more directed towards the quality of the service the BBC provides.
If the 'review' determined there was no way within the licence fee model to provide value for money (if it was unsustainable for instance) then it might conclude it had to go, though I'd agree the wording does lean more toward less extreme revisions. I'm not sure why they didn't go with 'scrap the licence fee', which they could have used as a bargaining counter in the expected coalition negotiations, down to 'well at least we'll get a comprehensive review'.
It does not need any review to know it does not provide value for money.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
I also enjoyed the Mozart Concerto, wasn't too sure about the Walton when I first heard it as a sixth former, for some reason I'm very fond of the piece.
Never realised until last night how big an orchestra and choir was need to perform the thing. Wasn't too struck by the Sibelius piece, not something I had heard before, but can't recall seeing it offered on any recording either.
I find that I still enjoy discussions on Radio 3 about classical music, though at times the attempt to match Classic FM grates. At least that wretched attempt to make it accessible for kids on the school run home has been kicked into the long grass.
There are plenty of wonderful videos on Youtube, but I do wonder if the BBC should make more effort to make some of its recordings available.
The BBC's promotion of classical music has been one its great strengths, and one which I value.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias".
I think this hits the nail on the head. Many are explicit that this is a primary reason for wanting change, which rather undermines good reasons for changes. Of course, everything political parties propose is spun by opponents as being for some malicious purpose if it is not obviously malevolent in act (if it cannot be portrayed as both), and the Tories in particular face that type of accusation quite often, but on this issue the sense that any proposals will be filtered through the prism of wanting 'payback' has been given substance by many proponents of change.
That is true and it's a shame. Even so, whatever the motivation of those who put a case forward, ultimately that case will stand or fall on its own merits.
I think you have a more optimistic opinion of how ultimately the genuine merits, or not, win out, than I do. I'm certainly not opposed to a debate and even massive changes to the BBC, though the stated or intended outcome of any review, what sort of BBC is wanted out of this, is indelibly tied up with the motivations of people imposing changes I suspect, and so a poor solution will probably result.
What I meant was that whatever decision is taken - and as you point out, these can be taken for any number of reasons - that solution will develop a life of its own, distinct from the motivation of whoever originally put it forward.
Ah, I see. Like Scottish devolution, perhaps it will lead to an even more dominant BBC, that'd be amusing.
A pleasant day to all.
If they earn that position on a level playing field, so be it. It could only have come by providing what the public wants, which has to be a good thing.
That said, it's not good for any organisation to be too dominant in any sector. However, as long as there are sizable competitors with reasonably easy access to air then that shouldn't be an issue.
@GIN1138 I'm a leftie, tbh I'm not really depressed - I don't see the BBC undergoing much of a radical transformation in the short-term. It most likely will in the long-term, but that's an inevitability due to how much the market has changed. I'm sure in the long-term the BBC will also thrive - while I don't think a lot of Conservative Loyalists will be subscribing, there are a lot of people out there who do like the BBC. I also think some competition may well do the BBC some good in terms of improve content that should be better e.g. drama series. It was discussed extensively on here, but the BBC could really do with producing a great 10 episode-per series show, seen in the US. The BBC is also a global brand, which is not really going to change overnight either.
@kle4 I guess they were scared they be a political backlash against them if they had gone with a 'scrap the license fee.
On another topic, in a question to all (this is very off-topic, but I was wondering) what do you all think of Paul Krugman?
Where I think the BBC argument *as is* case falls down is distinctiveness beyond adverts or not.
Every channel has a unique or distinctive set of programming. Just from the ones I watch - here's my mini summary
Spike - full of edgy reality stuff of a high quality and showing top shows like Breaking Bad/Sons of Anarchy every day - I can't see these elsewhere for free and a new entrant HeyDay - lots of music documentaries made by rock and pop magazine journalists Tru - full of different reality/docu stuff that's copied by E4 quite often ITVBe - primarily female audience stuff/daytime fodder 24/7 ITV4 - largely documentaries from the US/UK More4 - largely documentaries from the UK Travel - lots of content showcasing cuisine/destinations/other cultures/history
The BBC needs to work out what niches it will make its own in a very crowded marketplace. Pretending this competition for eyeballs doesn't exist in order to justify the TVLF is just stupid/myopic. All things to all people is an open goal.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias".
snip
snip
snip
Yes, I probably worded my reply badly. What I meant was that whatever decision is taken - and as you point out, these can be taken for any number of reasons - that solution will develop a life of its own, distinct from the motivation of whoever originally put it forward. In other words, say someone puts an idea forward with the intention of diminishing the Beeb's reach (for sake of argument) but that their thinking is flawed or incomplete and it would actually improve its chances, why wouldn't its supporters jump on that proposal?
I think the BBC should focus on what it does best and leave a lot of the dross to the commercial channels (both TV and radio).
It is under attack for two main reasons:
It sees itself as infallible and untouchable and has expanded beyond almost all reason. In so doing it has lost the Reithian sense of serving the people - too many of its management come from a class like Purnell who almost seem to look down on the license payers as being 'not of their class.'
Also it has lost its commercial common sense and is seen as being prodigal with the license-payers resources. It thinks that an annual hike is justified without question - something which is of little effect to those on a BBC salary, but has an effect on a tight budget. (however it still amazes me that those who are on benefits and claim to be on the poverty line can afford a full deal SKY). The BBC has a reputation for over-manning (both at reporter and manager level) and cannot justify sending so many different people to an event - whether news, sport or entertainment.
However, it would be a great mistake to destroy such a globally respected brand. It has to make better use of its resources globally. Recently the BBC satellite coverage reduced to the chagrin of many-expats in Spain.
So the World Service budget should come of the DCMS budget or that of DFID and should be well resourced, it is our best ambassador and should be funded as such.
Radio should be 4, 3 and perhaps 2, and TV 1,2 &4 with the rolling TV News/Parliament Channel.
Many people globally would pay a modest amount to receive such TV services - even with i-player.
Finally the BBC should return to the Reithian principles of strict political neutrality.
The government will not do this though. Sky, ITV and other media platforms would be totally opposed as a subscription based BBC also able to take advertising and able to access the capital markets would be a competitor they could not deal with. My Sky subscription is close to £90 a month. That would not be a sustainable price for Sky if they were going head to head with the BBC on a level playing field.
May I ask, why on earth do you pay such a huge amount of money for Sky?
I considered it about 18 months ago when I moved back into my house. I looked at what freeview offered, and simply couldn't justify paying such silly amounts for just a few extra channels I might watch for very short periods only now and again.
We do pay for Amazon Prime. For £80 a year we get access to all sorts of ad-free box-sets and films, which does us nicely.
I can honestly say the only person I knew who listened to R3 was my mother during the period when they'd routinely play the wrong LP and wait until the end of Side 1 before mentioning it.
It had a statistical BARB audience of 0 listeners. Nowadays it's often compared with Classic FM which I find hard to imagine since I endured the same playlists over and over and over at a friend's house, as she never turned it off.
Classic FM is however IIRC a commercial success - could R3 justify being a special case? Or R4? That strikes me as the high-browers wanting a subsidy when they can afford to pay for it on subscription instead.
I think the BBC should focus on what it does best and leave a lot of the dross to the commercial channels (both TV and radio).
It is under attack for two main reasons:
It sees itself as infallible and untouchable and has expanded beyond almost all reason. In so doing it has lost the Reithian sense of serving the people - too many of its management come from a class like Purnell who almost seem to look down on the license payers as being 'not of their class.'
Also it has lost its commercial common sense and is seen as being prodigal with the license-payers resources. It thinks that an annual hike is justified without question - something which is of little effect to those on a BBC salary, but has an effect on a tight budget. (however it still amazes me that those who are on benefits and claim to be on the poverty line can afford a full deal SKY). The BBC has a reputation for over-manning (both at reporter and manager level) and cannot justify sending so many different people to an event - whether news, sport or entertainment.
However, it would be a great mistake to destroy such a globally respected brand. It has to make better use of its resources globally. Recently the BBC satellite coverage reduced to the chagrin of many-expats in Spain.
So the World Service budget should come of the DCMS budget or that of DFID and should be well resourced, it is our best ambassador and should be funded as such.
You actually miss out the most important part of the BBC. It needs to support children's television so that educational entertainment is available for children without adverts or subscription fees.
I can honestly say the only person I knew who listened to R3 was my mother during the period when they'd routinely play the wrong LP and wait until the end of Side 1 before mentioning it.
It had a statistical BARB audience of 0 listeners. Nowadays it's often compared with Classic FM which I find hard to imagine since I endured the same playlists over and over and over at a friend's house, as she never turned it off.
Classic FM is however IIRC a commercial success - could R3 justify being a special case? Or R4? That strikes me as the high-browers wanting a subsidy when they can afford to pay for it on subscription instead.
I think the BBC should focus on what it does best and leave a lot of the dross to the commercial channels (both TV and radio).
It is under attack for two main reasons:
It sees itself as infallible and untouchable and has expanded beyond almost all reason. In so doing it has lost the Reithian sense of serving the people - too many of its management come from a class like Purnell who almost seem to look down on the license payers as being 'not of their class.'
Also it has lost its commercial common sense and is seen as being prodigal with the license-payers resources. It thinks that an annual hike is justified without question - something which is of little effect to those on a BBC salary, but has an effect on a tight budget. (however it still amazes me that those who are on benefits and claim to be on the poverty line can afford a full deal SKY). The BBC has a reputation for over-manning (both at reporter and manager level) and cannot justify sending so many different people to an event - whether news, sport or entertainment.
However, it would be a great mistake to destroy such a globally respected brand. It has to make better use of its resources globally. Recently the BBC satellite coverage reduced to the chagrin of many-expats in Spain.
So the World Service budget should come of the DCMS budget or that of DFID and should be well resourced, it is our best ambassador and should be funded as such.
If the BBC has to fund free access to those with someone of 75+ in house then Murdoch should be forced to do the same.
As I understand it, the BBC won't have to fund free access to households with someone aged 75+. What's changing is that the money that pays for that will have to come out of the BBC's budget and they'll have to decide if they continue to do it. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of that decision, but nobody is forcing the BBC to do anything.
For years I pestered my parents about getting Sky as I'm a big sports fan. They never gave in - and to a certain extent I'm glad they didn't as it may have distracted me from doing school work - though I'd listen to football and cricket on the radio anyway!
The first thing I did when I got a job in 2009 was to get Sky and it's been great. In November, 2013, however, Sky lost out to BT in bidding for the 2015-18 Champions League rights. From then on I was concerned about what would happen in the bidding for the 2016-19 Premier League rights and sure enough Sky paid an absolute fortune to secure their place in control of the majority of the rights including control of first picks.
So when Sky put my bill up £4 per month in June, despite the fact that they have lost the Champions League, I thought "that's it, I'm out". So I've just switched to BT (including phone and broadband) and can still get Sky Sports 1 and 2, and I'm saving £50 per month (for the first year at least).
The point is, I continually evaluated how much I was prepared to pay for Sky and when I decided that I'd had enough, I walked away.
I like the BBC - and would happily continue to have to pay the licence fee. But I'm sure plenty of money could be saved on the managerial side. They also seem to go over the top in terms of personnel at sporting events (which is what I mainly watch).
I just looked up Children's Channels on FreeSat - there are five of them excluding CBeebies.
Adverts aimed at children is tightly regulated - make it more so, if necessary. It doesn't make the BBC's output here so special as to be uniquely better.
You actually miss out the most important part of the BBC. It needs to support children's television so that educational entertainment is available for children without adverts or subscription fees.
In all honesty, the issue that bothers me about the BBC the most is the aggressive and bullying way in which the TV Licencing Authority operates.
Within days of moving into any flat or house I've ever lived in, I've received a passive-aggressive (sometimes just plain aggressive) letter from them. Follow-up letters can arrive very quickly; I once had three inside eight days despite buying my licence on the 3rd day I moved in.
The phrasing of their letters is full of menace, demanding to know your intentions and what you're up to, with a tone that suggest that if they even have to write to you about TV licences, you're probably a criminal so there's no need for courtesy anyway.
It's statist Stasiness of the worst kind. The equivalent of a bald-headed sheriff sponsored mafioso coming round and knocking on your front door just after you've moved in, with a forced smirk saying, "Welcome to the area. Now, remember to pay your protection money now, or we will come round and deck your head in"
Decriminalisation and abolition of a compulsory licence are the absolute de minimis for me.
You actually miss out the most important part of the BBC. It needs to support children's television so that educational entertainment is available for children without adverts or subscription fees.
I do not see why children's/schools programmes could not be incorporated in BBC 1,2 or 4 at the relevant times. Currently BBC4 starts at 7pm - so it has plenty of time for the children/schools programmes.
I'm surprised that there isn't a version of Classic FM for the TV. With documentaries/live shows/intv with famous artists/conductors/teachers et al/genres reviews
I'd watch it even though I don't listen to much of that sort of thing.
I can honestly say the only person I knew who listened to R3 was my mother during the period when they'd routinely play the wrong LP and wait until the end of Side 1 before mentioning it.
It had a statistical BARB audience of 0 listeners. Nowadays it's often compared with Classic FM which I find hard to imagine since I endured the same playlists over and over and over at a friend's house, as she never turned it off.
Classic FM is however IIRC a commercial success - could R3 justify being a special case? Or R4? That strikes me as the high-browers wanting a subsidy when they can afford to pay for it on subscription instead.
I think the BBC should focus on what it does best and leave a lot of the dross to the commercial channels (both TV and radio).
It is under attack for two main reasons:
It sees itself as infallible and untouchable and has expanded beyond almost all reason. In so doing it has lost the Reithian sense of serving the people - too many of its management come from a class like Purnell who almost seem to look down on the license payers as being 'not of their class.'
Also it has lost its commercial common sense and is seen as being prodigal with the license-payers resources. It thinks that an annual hike is justified without question - something which is of little effect to those on a BBC salary, but has an effect on a tight budget. (however it still amazes me that those who are on benefits and claim to be on the poverty line can afford a full deal SKY). The BBC has a reputation for over-manning (both at reporter and manager level) and cannot justify sending so many different people to an event - whether news, sport or entertainment.
However, it would be a great mistake to destroy such a globally respected brand. It has to make better use of its resources globally. Recently the BBC satellite coverage reduced to the chagrin of many-expats in Spain.
So the World Service budget should come of the DCMS budget or that of DFID and should be well resourced, it is our best ambassador and should be funded as such.
'Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?'
Poll tax to pay for council services everyone uses = bad, poll tax to pay for BBC even if you don't watch = good.
Have the Proms started??? The BBC are interviewing Katie Derham on R4 not another interview advert??
First Night was last night - Walton's Belshazzar's feast - double choir, double orchestra, brass band so much for the accessible piece for 15 players. Bloody BBC extravagance...
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
I enjoyed the Mozart. I hated the Walton. I just don't get that discordant strident form of singing/music.
I also enjoyed the Mozart Concerto, wasn't too sure about the Walton when I first heard it as a sixth former, for some reason I'm very fond of the piece.
Never realised until last night how big an orchestra and choir was need to perform the thing. Wasn't too struck by the Sibelius piece, not something I had heard before, but can't recall seeing it offered on any recording either.
I find that I still enjoy discussions on Radio 3 about classical music, though at times the attempt to match Classic FM grates. At least that wretched attempt to make it accessible for kids on the school run home has been kicked into the long grass.
There are plenty of wonderful videos on Youtube, but I do wonder if the BBC should make more effort to make some of its recordings available.
The BBC's promotion of classical music has been one its great strengths, and one which I value.
Yes - but you realise an awful lot of quite poor people are forced, on pain of prosecution, to pay for your esoteric tastes. In what way is that fair?
Everything the Conservative government has done so far was set out in their manifesto - A manifesto on which they won a majority... None of the policies implemented so far are a surprise.
Case in point is the BBC. When the exit poll came through at around five minutes to ten on 7th May, leftie Jeremy Vine was supposed to have said something like: "That's Scotland and the BBC Gone".
EVEL and BBC reform was well advertised before the election.
I read the Conservative manifesto before finally deciding how to vote. I was actually fairly impressed.
I must say, to be fair to the government, they have been fairly faithful so far in trying to implement it. I am more disappointed by the minority of Conservative backbench wreckers on things like foxhunting, EVEL, Human Rights etc. than I am with Cameron.
Cameron will disappoint (greatly) on the EU renegotiation, fail to get immigration anywhere near under control and continue with a few new-Labour social policies on gender issues.
All of that irritates me greatly, and I think on the first two they will come back to bite the Conservatives in future. However, next to a Labour government alternative, it's a breath of fresh air.
Agree, like other PBers here, I look forward to the Proms season on the BBC TV, which often does not broadcast some of the bits I want to watch (though all the Proms are available on R3). Also it could even incorporate some of the IN the Park events and perhaps some of the events like Glasto - I do not mean being a copy of MTV, but there is the chance to be wide ranging for the all-age audience. Certainly the interviews etc could be very educational - a replacement for BBC3?
I'm surprised that there isn't a version of Classic FM for the TV. With documentaries/live shows/intv with famous artists/conductors/teachers et al/genres reviews
I'd watch it even though I don't listen to much of that sort of thing.
I can honestly say the only person I knew who listened to R3 was my mother during the period when they'd routinely play the wrong LP and wait until the end of Side 1 before mentioning it.
snip).
It is under attack for two main reasons:
It sees itself as infallible and untouchable and has expanded beyond almost all reason. In so doing it has lost the Reithian sense of serving the people - too many of its management come from a class like Purnell who almost seem to look down on the license payers as being 'not of their class.'
Also it has lost its commercial common sense and is seen as being prodigal with the license-payers resources. It thinks that an annual hike is justified without question - something which is of little effect to those on a BBC salary, but has an effect on a tight budget. (however it still amazes me that those who are on benefits and claim to be on the poverty line can afford a full deal SKY). The BBC has a reputation for over-manning (both at reporter and manager level) and cannot justify sending so many different people to an event - whether news, sport or entertainment.
However, it would be a great mistake to destroy such a globally respected brand. It has to make better use of its resources globally. Recently the BBC satellite coverage reduced to the chagrin of many-expats in Spain.
So the World Service budget should come of the DCMS budget or that of DFID and should be well resourced, it is our best ambassador and should be funded as such.
BBC4 shows educational schools shows at 0300-0600 on some days.
I've recorded a couple by accident and I can't understand why they aren't shown during the day as well. They're fine for adult consumption if you know nothing about a subject.
You actually miss out the most important part of the BBC. It needs to support children's television so that educational entertainment is available for children without adverts or subscription fees.
I do not see why children's/schools programmes could not be incorporated in BBC 1,2 or 4 at the relevant times. Currently BBC4 starts at 7pm - so it has plenty of time for the children/schools programmes.
ICYMI - hopefully they won't be there for non-payment of TVLFs
Prisoners who work hard for qualifications while behind bars could be allowed to leave prison early under an “earned release” scheme, the justice secretary, Michael Gove, will suggest.
In his first major speech on prisons policy, Gove is due to say that more can be done to provide the right incentives for prisoners to learn, as well as calling for prison staff to give a higher priority to the education of those behind bars.
The justice secretary has asked his department look at how a system of earned release could operate in detail. It is likely to apply to most of the 86,000 prisoners who are serving fixed-term sentences and are currently automatically released when they reach the halfway point.
Good on Michael Gove. Many Tories have taken on the role of prison reform- Hurd, Aitken etc.. It seems that Gove is putting his considerable intellect and reforming zeal to good purpose.
I think that anyone who starts from a position that challenges the idea that people are 'born bad' has to agree with the idea that prison must be about reform as well as punishment/protection of society.
I hope Gove succeeds at least to some extent with his ideas because, even though I doubt he can make a radical difference in the next 4 or 5 years, he could make enough of a difference that his successors take the theory and the practice seriously and so continue it after he has gone.
I've worked in prisons and the number of genuinely bad people I came across was tiny. The prisons are mostly full of people suffering from addictions or mental health problems (usually both) and who have experienced traumatic childhoods.
It is mildly encouraging that there is a little bit of a minor rehabilitation of (the thoroughly decent) Michael Gove's reputation amongst some on the Left recently, including from some of pb.coms most distinguished left-wing posters.
Less than two years ago, whilst he was still SoS for Education, he was considered the antichrist .
A good point and another example of a resource not be fully exploited. I usually start doing emails about 4am and then watch the Countdown repeat at 6am on CH4 before going to the office.
BBC4 shows educational schools shows at 0300-0600 on some days.
I've recorded a couple by accident and I can't understand why they aren't shown during the day as well. They're fine for adult consumption if you know nothing about a subject.
You actually miss out the most important part of the BBC. It needs to support children's television so that educational entertainment is available for children without adverts or subscription fees.
I do not see why children's/schools programmes could not be incorporated in BBC 1,2 or 4 at the relevant times. Currently BBC4 starts at 7pm - so it has plenty of time for the children/schools programmes.
All those saying that they are personally happy to pay the licence fee and deem it good value for themselves and using this argument to support the licence fee are rather missing the point. That statement is only of value for those prescribing a subscription model - that is, that the value of the BBC channels is great enough that they (and by inference, others) would pay for access).
The point is whether those who do not want access on those terms, who would not choose to pay if there was an option, who don't see it as value but are compelled to pay in order to support those who do like it ... should continue to be compelled to pay.
Only if the BBC can be demonstrated conclusively to be a positive externality to all of those people and that the licence fee is the only way to avoid a Tragedy of the Commons involving loss of that externality (and that that loss would be greater than the value gained by those not subscribing by the return of their freedom to spend their money as they choose) should the licence fee be retained. Otherwise, compulsion is illiberal. It can only be justified if it averts a "negative freedom".
Excellent post, and exceptionally well put. I agree with every word.
The extraction of money for Guardian Live on Radio 4 and 24 hour TV raises my blood pressure. On too many levels the beeboid fall back is interventionist state good, smaller state bad without asking if state intervention has its limits or if the action results in greater failings.
I'm not that much bothered about any reform of the BBC, so long as it doesn't do any harm to Radio 3. I have an immense, incalculable debt to the station - to which I have been an avid listener since my teenage years, some 40 years ago. I know my intellectual development has been fostered much more by Radio 3 than anything I learnt at school.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
Has Cameron convened a COBRA meeting yet to discuss the threat posed by seagulls? Or should that be 'self - proclaimed seagulls' or 'so - called SG'? Are any British military personnel embedded with the RSPB? This is all vital stuff.
The extraction of money for Guardian Live on Radio 4 and 24 hour TV raises my blood pressure. On too many levels the beeboid fall back is interventionist state good, smaller state bad without asking if state intervention has its limits or if the action results in greater failings.
Comments
I think Farron should be cleaning out his own Scottish stables before casting stones at the SNP. Personally I don't care if the LibDems choose political annihilation in Scotland by not facing up to the reality of the Carmichael situation - but surely the results of the poll below must carry some weight with Farron:
" The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71%
Should not resign: 14%
Don’t know: 15% "
Farron's response to the Scottish people:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13462909.New_leader_of_Lib_Dems_says__quot_decent_people_quot__will_back_Alistair_Carmichael/
In a nutshell - 71% of voters are wrong - arrogance personified. This coming from a party with 25 Scottish unelected peers with no doubt more to come in the diss hons list.
Farron has an opportunity to overrule the self-interested Scottish LibDem party machine and be seen to do the right thing. For what it's worth I think a candidate like Jo Swinson would have a good chance of winning a O&S by-election, effectively giving the LibDems the impression of winning a seat even though it doesn't add to their total and give them some momentum for May 2016 Council and Scottish elections.
I enjoyed the music last night, even the modern piece. What is annoys me is that past TV concerts aren't available at a later date, and that Proms concerts on Youtube get removed, probably BBC pressure over 'copyright'.
PS. In the last line of your post, try replacing "Tories" with "blacks" or "gays" or "Jews" - and think on about the level of hatred that underpins your priggish, self-satisfied, self-righteous view of the world.
The Left - the last bastion of uncriminalised hatred in this country....
In any case, the funding of arts barely touches the debate about the BBC, which is a dominant player in various media markets, which has significant structural advantages (and would continue to do so even without a Charter or taxing rights), and which is as such, in no need of a subsidy for worthy causes.
Artists who want to be funded to pursue their whims should do what artists have always done: find a rich sponsor and/or an appreciative audience.
"Because our arrogance has the effect of stopping us listening. In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right. It makes us believe that if people don’t agree with us then they are either less moral or need educating. "
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/
Case in point is the BBC. When the exit poll came through at around five minutes to ten on 7th May, leftie Jeremy Vine was supposed to have said something like: "That's Scotland and the BBC Gone".
EVEL and BBC reform was well advertised before the election.
Good on Michael Gove. Many Tories have taken on the role of prison reform- Hurd, Aitken etc.. It seems that Gove is putting his considerable intellect and reforming zeal to good purpose.
I think that anyone who starts from a position that challenges the idea that people are 'born bad' has to agree with the idea that prison must be about reform as well as punishment/protection of society.
I hope Gove succeeds at least to some extent with his ideas because, even though I doubt he can make a radical difference in the next 4 or 5 years, he could make enough of a difference that his successors take the theory and the practice seriously and so continue it after he has gone.
My surname does not reflect me at all. Glad you suffer from the same affliction.
In short talking bollox, all our cash goes to London and we get a meagre portion back after the shysters have pilfered it. The imaginary rubbish of making up a tax number to say we get 50% of it is just a fantasy that idiots like you can use as an excuse. The only subsidy is us to London.
As I imply in the intro, I like quite a lot of what the BBC does. It is, despite its liberal-left bias, my first port of call for news and its website is very good compared with competitors. However, there are faults that need addressing and its entire needs future-proofing as far as possible. These are two separate, but related, challenges and that's where the politics starts to intervene. Still, it's also precisely what the current debates about so it's not only legitimate but to be encouraged to discuss those issues.
I grew up next to Bradford, which was once the wool capital of the world and a wealthy city. It's now a dump. The main reason was a desire to hold on to an industry which technology and a changing market had rendered unsustainable. Instead of using its advantage in existing markets to get ahead of the game in the newly developing ones, it sat complacently on its self-assumed throne, dismissing those new industries as of no threat. It was a vast mistake. The BBC is in a similar position. Without change, it could easily be left in 10 or 15 years looking back at a series of empty buildings, still wondering 'what happened?'.
something something, not a majority of electorate, unfair system, something something, how dare you ask if I was happy with Lab winning with less of the vote, something something
There, hopefully that will cut short that avenue.
The BBC is the go to media outlet in many areas because it is so good at what it does. It raises the bar for others to follow. It drives up standards across the board. Without its privileged position this would not happen.
Diminish the BBC and let's see a rush to the bottom.
Funnily enough I was reading the thread about the BBC at the same time and was trying to clarify in my own mind what the Proms - which I love - imply about the BBC and its role as a public service boadcaster. I disagree fundamentally with David in his thread header that the BBC should be a mass appeal broadcaster. I actually think that the public service remit should be what it as the fore. Producing the sorts of programming that would not be viable with subscription or advertising sourced revenue seems to me to be the thing that the BBC should, concentrate on. It certainly should not be trying to compete with other commercial channels for mass audience broadcasting and paying 'stars' vast amounts of money to appear on the channel.
I wonder how many of those stars writing letters of support for the BBC as a priceless institution would still be happy to appear for free or for a very small fee because the BBC is so important to the nation? Surely they could make their millions on other commercial channels whilst giving a small amount of their time to support the BBC?
London is the wealthiest part of Her Majesty's Kingdom. So why do our usual Troupe of Jockanese Clowns still argue that they subsidise BoJo-city...?
I remember being at University when the Beatles 'Revolution'was getting airplay. The student Dave Sparts hated it, particularly ... "But when you want money for people with minds that hate, All I can tell you is brother you have to wait."
One leftie stood up and called Lennon a "class enemy" and other ruder insults. Yes, I thought, you're just proving the lyrics are right.
It's the same with any extremist. They know they're right and the other side are fools, and worse than that, they're dangerous fools, so any sort of opposition is justified.
I think that Labour are hurting at the moment, so the loons are coming out of the woodwork.
This does however apply in the other direction of course, unless we are to pretend Ed M could have proposed something good and certain segments would automatically have dismissed it until Osborne or Cameron adopted the same idea. Well, sure. The point being, maybe they are making decisions which are really really nasty, people can quibble about that, but if people think that is the case, I don't really see what it adds to think they are getting erections out of causing the resulting suffering as well. The fact of the suffering, if it is occurring, is condemnation enough of the action.
Mr T was being a bit of an ass himself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11747506/eu-diplomats-plan-fine-dining-service.html
I hope Gove succeeds at least to some extent with his ideas because, even though I doubt he can make a radical difference in the next 4 or 5 years, he could make enough of a difference that his successors take the theory and the practice seriously and so continue it after he has gone.
I've worked in prisons and the number of genuinely bad people I came across was tiny. The prisons are mostly full of people suffering from addictions or mental health problems (usually both) and who have experienced traumatic childhoods.
"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."
It was poor but happened to chime with the non-self-aware PB Tories delusions.
Once the BBC is "dealt with" what should the government do when Rupert Murdoch relaunches his bid to take over Sky?
Besides the issue is not whether the programme 'becomes' successful. I am not saying the BBC should only do stuff that has no chance of ever becoming mass market. I am saying it should not do stuff that is assured of being mass market - soap operas, reality shows, daytime TV - the sort of stuff that is done just as well if not better by other stations.
Go and look at the BBC1 schedule for today and tell me what there is there that could not be done just as well by another channel or would qualify as public service broadcasting.
And that's why I disagree with those who advocate that solution. It's not that the Beeb shouldn't get involved in classical music or niche dramas or whatever but overall it should serve its viewers and listeners the same as any other media organisation. A genuinely independent, self-sufficient organisation would, in many ways, be no different from other companies and as such shouldn't be treated any differently. Let it make The Voice and Strictly and so on (neither of which I watch but millions of others do). But in another way, it would remain distinct, not only because of its history but because if it were a mutual, owned and accountable to its members, then it would (I hope) retain a culture distinct from the world of shareholder-owned producers - and that diversity is important.
What is he subscribing to? Waittress service?
TDF is on ITV4, which is online, on Freeview and on Free to Air Satellite.
Another day, another broken promise:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3165966/Tories-break-promise-cap-care-fees.html
How about we slash the foreign aid budget and look after our own instead.
A pleasant day to all.
Let me turn the question around. If the BBC didn't exist, would there be a problem in creating a new mass-market broadcaster to compete with ITV, C4, Sky and the rest? Presumably not as there new broadcasters have entered the market fairly frequently over the last 20 years. So why not make use of the one that's already there?
I don't really get the bit about 'public service broadcasting' as I don't really get why the public should be served something they don't want and which would probably be of much less quality from an organisation with far less resource than today's Beeb.
Childish oversimplicity is attractive as it means one doesn't have to exert oneself to try to understand another's point of view, but it rarely produces any useful data. Such as a sensible course of action.
Never realised until last night how big an orchestra and choir was need to perform the thing. Wasn't too struck by the Sibelius piece, not something I had heard before, but can't recall seeing it offered on any recording either.
I find that I still enjoy discussions on Radio 3 about classical music, though at times the attempt to match Classic FM grates. At least that wretched attempt to make it accessible for kids on the school run home has been kicked into the long grass.
There are plenty of wonderful videos on Youtube, but I do wonder if the BBC should make more effort to make some of its recordings available.
The BBC's promotion of classical music has been one its great strengths, and one which I value.
That said, it's not good for any organisation to be too dominant in any sector. However, as long as there are sizable competitors with reasonably easy access to air then that shouldn't be an issue.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4501733.ece
ie The trolling campaign against him was, in fact, trolling.
@kle4 I guess they were scared they be a political backlash against them if they had gone with a 'scrap the license fee.
On another topic, in a question to all (this is very off-topic, but I was wondering) what do you all think of Paul Krugman?
EastEnders used to be good. But in the last five years or so it's become unwatchable.
Every channel has a unique or distinctive set of programming. Just from the ones I watch - here's my mini summary
Spike - full of edgy reality stuff of a high quality and showing top shows like Breaking Bad/Sons of Anarchy every day - I can't see these elsewhere for free and a new entrant
HeyDay - lots of music documentaries made by rock and pop magazine journalists
Tru - full of different reality/docu stuff that's copied by E4 quite often
ITVBe - primarily female audience stuff/daytime fodder 24/7
ITV4 - largely documentaries from the US/UK
More4 - largely documentaries from the UK
Travel - lots of content showcasing cuisine/destinations/other cultures/history
The BBC needs to work out what niches it will make its own in a very crowded marketplace. Pretending this competition for eyeballs doesn't exist in order to justify the TVLF is just stupid/myopic. All things to all people is an open goal.
It is under attack for two main reasons:
It sees itself as infallible and untouchable and has expanded beyond almost all reason. In so doing it has lost the Reithian sense of serving the people - too many of its management come from a class like Purnell who almost seem to look down on the license payers as being 'not of their class.'
Also it has lost its commercial common sense and is seen as being prodigal with the license-payers resources. It thinks that an annual hike is justified without question - something which is of little effect to those on a BBC salary, but has an effect on a tight budget. (however it still amazes me that those who are on benefits and claim to be on the poverty line can afford a full deal SKY). The BBC has a reputation for over-manning (both at reporter and manager level) and cannot justify sending so many different people to an event - whether news, sport or entertainment.
However, it would be a great mistake to destroy such a globally respected brand. It has to make better use of its resources globally. Recently the BBC satellite coverage reduced to the chagrin of many-expats in Spain.
So the World Service budget should come of the DCMS budget or that of DFID and should be well resourced, it is our best ambassador and should be funded as such.
Radio should be 4, 3 and perhaps 2, and TV 1,2 &4 with the rolling TV News/Parliament Channel.
Many people globally would pay a modest amount to receive such TV services - even with i-player.
Finally the BBC should return to the Reithian principles of strict political neutrality.
I considered it about 18 months ago when I moved back into my house. I looked at what freeview offered, and simply couldn't justify paying such silly amounts for just a few extra channels I might watch for very short periods only now and again.
We do pay for Amazon Prime. For £80 a year we get access to all sorts of ad-free box-sets and films, which does us nicely.
It had a statistical BARB audience of 0 listeners. Nowadays it's often compared with Classic FM which I find hard to imagine since I endured the same playlists over and over and over at a friend's house, as she never turned it off.
Classic FM is however IIRC a commercial success - could R3 justify being a special case? Or R4? That strikes me as the high-browers wanting a subsidy when they can afford to pay for it on subscription instead.
You actually miss out the most important part of the BBC. It needs to support children's television so that educational entertainment is available for children without adverts or subscription fees.
I was envisaging a R3 something like Classic FM with some of the serious bits as well. R4 is the talk/drama etc programme. R2 for lighter music.
For years I pestered my parents about getting Sky as I'm a big sports fan. They never gave in - and to a certain extent I'm glad they didn't as it may have distracted me from doing school work - though I'd listen to football and cricket on the radio anyway!
The first thing I did when I got a job in 2009 was to get Sky and it's been great. In November, 2013, however, Sky lost out to BT in bidding for the 2015-18 Champions League rights. From then on I was concerned about what would happen in the bidding for the 2016-19 Premier League rights and sure enough Sky paid an absolute fortune to secure their place in control of the majority of the rights including control of first picks.
So when Sky put my bill up £4 per month in June, despite the fact that they have lost the Champions League, I thought "that's it, I'm out". So I've just switched to BT (including phone and broadband) and can still get Sky Sports 1 and 2, and I'm saving £50 per month (for the first year at least).
The point is, I continually evaluated how much I was prepared to pay for Sky and when I decided that I'd had enough, I walked away.
I like the BBC - and would happily continue to have to pay the licence fee. But I'm sure plenty of money could be saved on the managerial side. They also seem to go over the top in terms of personnel at sporting events (which is what I mainly watch).
Adverts aimed at children is tightly regulated - make it more so, if necessary. It doesn't make the BBC's output here so special as to be uniquely better.
Within days of moving into any flat or house I've ever lived in, I've received a passive-aggressive (sometimes just plain aggressive) letter from them. Follow-up letters can arrive very quickly; I once had three inside eight days despite buying my licence on the 3rd day I moved in.
The phrasing of their letters is full of menace, demanding to know your intentions and what you're up to, with a tone that suggest that if they even have to write to you about TV licences, you're probably a criminal so there's no need for courtesy anyway.
It's statist Stasiness of the worst kind. The equivalent of a bald-headed sheriff sponsored mafioso coming round and knocking on your front door just after you've moved in, with a forced smirk saying, "Welcome to the area. Now, remember to pay your protection money now, or we will come round and deck your head in"
Decriminalisation and abolition of a compulsory licence are the absolute de minimis for me.
I'd watch it even though I don't listen to much of that sort of thing.
'Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?'
Poll tax to pay for council services everyone uses = bad, poll tax to pay for BBC even if you don't watch = good.
I must say, to be fair to the government, they have been fairly faithful so far in trying to implement it. I am more disappointed by the minority of Conservative backbench wreckers on things like foxhunting, EVEL, Human Rights etc. than I am with Cameron.
Cameron will disappoint (greatly) on the EU renegotiation, fail to get immigration anywhere near under control and continue with a few new-Labour social policies on gender issues.
All of that irritates me greatly, and I think on the first two they will come back to bite the Conservatives in future. However, next to a Labour government alternative, it's a breath of fresh air.
It can still make me laugh uproariously, even today, and, despite the date, it bizarrely doesn't feel dated.
I've recorded a couple by accident and I can't understand why they aren't shown during the day as well. They're fine for adult consumption if you know nothing about a subject.
Sky I can understand but the BBC ?
It is mildly encouraging that there is a little bit of a minor rehabilitation of (the thoroughly decent) Michael Gove's reputation amongst some on the Left recently, including from some of pb.coms most distinguished left-wing posters.
Less than two years ago, whilst he was still SoS for Education, he was considered the antichrist .
The extraction of money for Guardian Live on Radio 4 and 24 hour TV raises my blood pressure. On too many levels the beeboid fall back is interventionist state good, smaller state bad without asking if state intervention has its limits or if the action results in greater failings.
Just to take one example: last night's prom concert, to which a number of people have already referred; during the interval there was a fascinating talk on the history of Babylon. This is the kind of thing Radio 3 does brilliantly. And frankly to compare it to Classic FM is ridiculous - if I'm forced to listen to that heap of shit for more than 15 minutes I am in real danger of a psychotic outburst.
Before I stopped listening to R4/R5 - they appeared more often than their readership would appear to reflect.