This is why the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation needs to be smashed into a million pieces
The BBC has defended its decision not to broadcast the first six hours of the extra day’s play at the Open even though the first pairing of Ryan Fox and Bernhard Langer started their final rounds at 7.45am.
The Open was extended into a fifth day this year for the first time since 1988 after high winds made parts of the course unplayable for much of Saturday, but instead of clearing its schedule on Monday BBC1 stuck with its scheduled programming – Homes Under the Hammer through to Bargain Hunt, while BBC2 served up Victoria Derbyshire and the Daily Politics. Coverage was scheduled to eventually start at 1.45pm on BBC1.
Whittingdale explained that for "conditional access" to work, non-subscribers would have to be excluded. Technology allows a service to cut off non-payers painlessly, rather than dragging them through the court system, but the minister thinks “the technology isn’t there yet” to make the jump from a household fee based (in practice) on possession of a device, to a conditional fee based on access.
Is Whittingdale right that we lack the technology? Yes, pretty much.
How is the technology not there yet? It has been done through subscription services all over the world
So we'll be expected to buy a 'BBC box' and pay more for the programmes than the current licence fee. because not everybody will sign up The quality of the BBC output will drop because they will have less income and the others - Sky, ITV, Channels 4 and 5 will not have to try so hard to keep up with an emasculated Beeb. The quality of out TV choice will start to drop. Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
But the status quo cannot last - the licence fee is unsupportable in the long term.
There will be political repercussions if the BBC tries to maintain the current system and suffers dwindling revenues long term; if they move to a per-house obligatory tax; or if they force everyone to get new STBs for a subscription services, just a few years after they last forced us to get new boxes.
So it's a case of getting the 'right' system for the consumer and country. That will not be the one the BBC wants, as their recent luvvie letter stupidity indicates.
Yes Plato- Trotsky is a girl doggie. VW remembered. She doesn't seem to mind too much about being labelled with a more macho name, especially when being called for food.
Whittingdale explained that for "conditional access" to work, non-subscribers would have to be excluded. Technology allows a service to cut off non-payers painlessly, rather than dragging them through the court system, but the minister thinks “the technology isn’t there yet” to make the jump from a household fee based (in practice) on possession of a device, to a conditional fee based on access.
Is Whittingdale right that we lack the technology? Yes, pretty much.
How is the technology not there yet? It has been done through subscription services all over the world
So we'll be expected to buy a 'BBC box' and pay more for the programmes than the current licence fee. because not everybody will sign up The quality of the BBC output will drop because they will have less income and the others - Sky, ITV, Channels 4 and 5 will not have to try so hard to keep up with an emasculated Beeb. The quality of out TV choice will start to drop. Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
What percentage of the electorate share your ideas of what is quality? And what percentage care enough to change their vote?
The vast majority of the population already do not watch your 'quality' BBC products. Why would they mourn their loss? Only 1/5th of the population watched the UK's most watched show in 2105, and that was on ITV.
Whittingdale explained that for "conditional access" to work, non-subscribers would have to be excluded. Technology allows a service to cut off non-payers painlessly, rather than dragging them through the court system, but the minister thinks “the technology isn’t there yet” to make the jump from a household fee based (in practice) on possession of a device, to a conditional fee based on access.
Is Whittingdale right that we lack the technology? Yes, pretty much.
How is the technology not there yet? It has been done through subscription services all over the world
So we'll be expected to buy a 'BBC box' and pay more for the programmes than the current licence fee. because not everybody will sign up The quality of the BBC output will drop because they will have less income and the others - Sky, ITV, Channels 4 and 5 will not have to try so hard to keep up with an emasculated Beeb. The quality of out TV choice will start to drop. Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
Did you read the article?
The Tories kicked it down the road precisely because it would be too costly in terms of the tech and the politics.
"The quality of the BBC output will drop because they will have less income and the others" The article points out that a subscription basis would likely increase the BBC's revenue, at a cost to some competitors...
Whittingdale explained that for "conditional access" to work, non-subscribers would have to be excluded. Technology allows a service to cut off non-payers painlessly, rather than dragging them through the court system, but the minister thinks “the technology isn’t there yet” to make the jump from a household fee based (in practice) on possession of a device, to a conditional fee based on access.
Is Whittingdale right that we lack the technology? Yes, pretty much.
How is the technology not there yet? It has been done through subscription services all over the world
So we'll be expected to buy a 'BBC box' and pay more for the programmes than the current licence fee. because not everybody will sign up The quality of the BBC output will drop because they will have less income and the others - Sky, ITV, Channels 4 and 5 will not have to try so hard to keep up with an emasculated Beeb. The quality of out TV choice will start to drop. Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
Logic bypass. If they are paying more because there are less people, they will end up with the same amount of money. If people keep paying the same and there are less people they will get less money.
The younger voters who don't watch any of those but can now spend an extra 140 quid each year on Amazon and Netflix wont mind, the several thousand people hassled for not paying the license on the TV they don't have wont mind'. The few dozen people that go to jail because they cant afford the license fee probably will mind because they clearly want something for nothing. Most of the channels aren't trying anyway, they are buying in content from abroad, so nothing will change there.
Labour's primary fight is with the Conservatives. Not the SNP or Liberal Democrats or Greens.
If Labour want to regain power they are going to need to take votes and seats directly off the Conservatives. Anything else is a distraction.
Seats certainly, and to do that votes as well, but that's not the whole story. There are other sources of votes in key marginals, which might be easier for Labour to grab (LibDems, Greens, disillusioned ex-voters).
Nor is it even obvious that those particular focus groups are representative of the most fertile territory even amongst 2015 Tory voters - they might have been voters making the classic drift towards the right as the get older, and therefore lost to Labour for good. There might be other 2015 Conservative voters who might be at least as good and perhaps better targets for Labour - perhaps some of whom voted LibDem in 2010, or didn't vote at all, or who for some specific reasons might now regret voting Conservative.
In other words, it would be a mistake to focus too much on the very narrow segment of 2010-2015 Lab->Con switchers. The picture is more complex than that.
They should focus on the 2005-2015 Lab-Con switchers in the top 100 key marginals. Not just post 2010.
Any strategy that leads to Labour looking like a credible alternative government will attract votes from across the spectrum, including Green and Lib Dem voters as well, if they have a leader that looks like a PM and they can talk normal and look safe on the economy.
To do that, they need to displace the narrative of Conservative competence, leadership and fiscal retictude. That means targetting the Conservatives directly.
The problem for Lab with the strategy you suggest is that in many of the Lab targets there are not enough LD and Green votes for this strategy to work e.g.
Northampton North - Con maj 3,245. Green 1,503, LD 1,401. Leaving aside non-voters (who are likely to keep being non-voters), this means that to win this seat, Lab either need switchers from UKIP or direct Tory-Lab switchers
Zac Goldsmith is backed by nearly seven out of 10 Tory supporters who named a candidate to be the party’s challenger for London Mayor in a poll.
The survey of Londoners by YouGov showed the Richmond Park MP storming ahead, with more support than for five other candidates put together.
He was favoured by 69 per cent of people in London who voted Conservative at the general election, after “don’t knows” and “none of the above” were excluded.
Fifteen per cent named former England footballer Sol Campbell, six per cent London Assembly member Andrew Boff, five per cent Syed Kamall, MEP for London, four per cent deputy mayor for policing Stephen Greenhalgh, while one per cent opted for entrepreneur Ivan Massow.
Among the wider London public, millionaire Mr Goldsmith was also far ahead, on 63 per cent, with Mr Campbell in second place on 17 per cent.
Given the alternatives, it seems pretty clear. Personally, I think the only Tory with a chance of winning is Seb Coe.
Coe was not a success as an MP and appeared very lightweight. The London Olympics will be four years in the past - and were very far from being universally popular in London itself.
There were certainly grumbles ahead of the event. But once they started they brought London together like nothing else has in recent years (incidentally, Boris's speech in Hyde Park on the eve will I think come to be regarded as the high point of his political career).
Opinions about Heathrow expansion are much more divided. And Zac's visible and vocal opposition will not necessarily go down well.
The quality of out[sic] TV choice will start to drop.
How DO the BBC decide what programmes to create/broadcast? (Genuine question)
Commercial TV is largely ratings driven. How does non-Commercial TV decide on their output.
Is it paternalistically done by some sort of committee in the BBC, who decide how much time should be devoted to minority interests? If so, what methods do they use to decide?
Maybe they should ask the payers of the license fee. That way, they would be able to gauge just how strongly people wanted to see, for example, classical music concerts, or minority sports. Then they could weight the TV output accordingly. Democracy in action!
This is why the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation needs to be smashed into a million pieces
The BBC has defended its decision not to broadcast the first six hours of the extra day’s play at the Open even though the first pairing of Ryan Fox and Bernhard Langer started their final rounds at 7.45am.
The Open was extended into a fifth day this year for the first time since 1988 after high winds made parts of the course unplayable for much of Saturday, but instead of clearing its schedule on Monday BBC1 stuck with its scheduled programming – Homes Under the Hammer through to Bargain Hunt, while BBC2 served up Victoria Derbyshire and the Daily Politics. Coverage was scheduled to eventually start at 1.45pm on BBC1.
Maybe they should ask the payers of the license fee. That way, they would be able to gauge just how strongly people wanted to see, for example, classical music concerts, or minority sports. Then they could weight the TV output accordingly. Democracy in action!
< Sir Humphrey Voice>My dear fellow, that would be the end of civilisation as we know it, where would it end ? The abolition of the monarch!? All sorts of unsuitable mass entertainment would start to appear on the television, there would be that dreadful game that passes for football with our American friends, and basketball! What would happen to Glyndebourne and all those other bastions of British culture that are appreciated by people that go to our universities - either of them!< /Sir Humphrey Voice>
Labour's primary fight is with the Conservatives. Not the SNP or Liberal Democrats or Greens.
If Labour want to regain power they are going to need to take votes and seats directly off the Conservatives. Anything else is a distraction.
To deny the Tories office,however, Labour probably only needs them to drop below 310 - in a 650 House of Commons . This would be achieved by 15 -20 Tory losses to Labour with perhaps a further 3 -5 Tory losses to the LibDems.
310 and the Tories will be in office. They can cobble up to 320 with the NI unionists, which is enough.
The Tories need to be below 295 seats for Labour to knock them off their perch.
Sorry I don't think so. The laws of parliamentary arithmetic are very unlikely to be suspended for the benefit of the Tories.In a chamber of 650 seats 320 would not suffice. As an absolute minimum a Tory minority Government would need 323 - assuming Sinn Fein still stay away.- to soldier on. At most the Unionists would have 10 and bar UKIP it is difficult to see anyone else wishing to prop them up. I certainly cannot see Farron and the LibDems coming to help them. A result on the lines of 255 Lab + 50 SNP +3 Plaid +3 SDLP + 1 Green + Lady H gives a total of 313. If Farron has -say -12 I cannot see him pushing the Tories over the line. Beyond that, I would also think it likely that the DUP would switch sides if it became clear that the Tories lacked sufficient allies to make it.
The parliamentary arithmetic favour the Tories if they are on 310 seats. With the unionists they'd be on 318-319 and that's sufficient for them to stay in office. And, remember, they are the incumbents and need to be voted out or resign first for a Labour PM to take power. That would certainly not be a realistic option on the numbers you quote.
Whether the Tories can comfortably govern and carry out their programme, or not, and last the parliament is another matter.
With respect I cannot imagine any of the parties I have referred to failing to vote down a Tory Queens Speech. Indeed the LibDems might see it as a golden opportunity to redeem themselves with former left of centre voters.
Fair enough. We might have to agree to disagree on this point.
Apropos bad BBC decisions, I thought they butchered Beethoven's 9th from the Proms last night on BBC4. In between the movements they had a talking head telling what was coming next complete with musical snippets.
Labour's primary fight is with the Conservatives. Not the SNP or Liberal Democrats or Greens.
If Labour want to regain power they are going to need to take votes and seats directly off the Conservatives. Anything else is a distraction.
Seats certainly, and to do that votes as well, but that's not the whole story. There are other sources of votes in key marginals, which might be easier for Labour to grab (LibDems, Greens, disillusioned ex-voters).
Nor is it even obvious that those particular focus groups are representative of the most fertile territory even amongst 2015 Tory voters - they might have been voters making the classic drift towards the right as the get older, and therefore lost to Labour for good. There might be other 2015 Conservative voters who might be at least as good and perhaps better targets for Labour - perhaps some of whom voted LibDem in 2010, or didn't vote at all, or who for some specific reasons might now regret voting Conservative.
In other words, it would be a mistake to focus too much on the very narrow segment of 2010-2015 Lab->Con switchers. The picture is more complex than that.
They should focus on the 2005-2015 Lab-Con switchers in the top 100 key marginals. Not just post 2010.
Any strategy that leads to Labour looking like a credible alternative government will attract votes from across the spectrum, including Green and Lib Dem voters as well, if they have a leader that looks like a PM and they can talk normal and look safe on the economy.
To do that, they need to displace the narrative of Conservative competence, leadership and fiscal retictude. That means targetting the Conservatives directly.
The problem for Lab with the strategy you suggest is that in many of the Lab targets there are not enough LD and Green votes for this strategy to work e.g.
Northampton North - Con maj 3,245. Green 1,503, LD 1,401. Leaving aside non-voters (who are likely to keep being non-voters), this means that to win this seat, Lab either need switchers from UKIP or direct Tory-Lab switchers
I'm not suggesting that strategy. I'm merely saying that any strategy that results in Labour appealing to Tory defectors and looking like a credible alternative government is likely to attract defectors - or tactical votes if you prefer - from other centre-left parties as well who will recognise a genuine alternative and sense an opportunity to dethrone a Tory government.
OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].
She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.
One obvious thing to do here is to require all faiths school to take something like 20% of its students from outside the faith. If you can't get that many, then you get a chance to correct it before being closed down. I'm sure moderate CoE schools wouldn't have a problem getting there. The Saudi-funded Islamist ones are more doubtful.
Saudi-funded Islamist schools should be closed down not indulged. They are part of the problem not part of the solution.
Apropos bad BBC decisions, I thought they butchered Beethoven's 9th from the Proms last night on BBC4. In between the movements they had a talking head telling what was coming next complete with musical snippets.
Whittingdale explained that for "conditional access" to work, non-subscribers would have to be excluded. Technology allows a service to cut off non-payers painlessly, rather than dragging them through the court system, but the minister thinks “the technology isn’t there yet” to make the jump from a household fee based (in practice) on possession of a device, to a conditional fee based on access.
Is Whittingdale right that we lack the technology? Yes, pretty much.
How is the technology not there yet? It has been done through subscription services all over the world
So we'll be expected to buy a 'BBC box' and pay more for the programmes than the current licence fee. because not everybody will sign up The quality of the BBC output will drop because they will have less income and the others - Sky, ITV, Channels 4 and 5 will not have to try so hard to keep up with an emasculated Beeb. The quality of out TV choice will start to drop. Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
What percentage of the electorate share your ideas of what is quality? And what percentage care enough to change their vote?
The vast majority of the population already do not watch your 'quality' BBC products. Why would they mourn their loss? Only 1/5th of the population watched the UK's most watched show in 2105, and that was on ITV.
And if Eastenders is so good then advertisers would be queueing up to pay for adverts in the middle of the programme and we could see ''Eastenders, Sponsored by Prozac'' before and after it. Why should anyone have to pay for that which people can sponsor? Did that stop the production of Brideshead Revisited? Poirot Morse Lewis The Avengers Sweeney Marple, crikey, Midsommer Murders etc etc... The notion that half decent television requires a licence fee is rubbish. On Saturday night BBC - before the National Lottery Quiz we had yet another gormless quiz, the barsteward child of Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Late Late breakfast Show. As if this was not bad enough it was repeated on Sunday Night! This is public service broadcasting?
Comments
His cursing the England team is the only explanation of why we played so badly.
Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
But the status quo cannot last - the licence fee is unsupportable in the long term.
There will be political repercussions if the BBC tries to maintain the current system and suffers dwindling revenues long term; if they move to a per-house obligatory tax; or if they force everyone to get new STBs for a subscription services, just a few years after they last forced us to get new boxes.
So it's a case of getting the 'right' system for the consumer and country. That will not be the one the BBC wants, as their recent luvvie letter stupidity indicates.
Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
What percentage of the electorate share your ideas of what is quality? And what percentage care enough to change their vote?
The vast majority of the population already do not watch your 'quality' BBC products. Why would they mourn their loss? Only 1/5th of the population watched the UK's most watched show in 2105, and that was on ITV.
Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
Did you read the article?
The Tories kicked it down the road precisely because it would be too costly in terms of the tech and the politics.
"The quality of the BBC output will drop because they will have less income and the others"
The article points out that a subscription basis would likely increase the BBC's revenue, at a cost to some competitors...
Do the Tories really think that there will not be any political repercussions?
Logic bypass. If they are paying more because there are less people, they will end up with the same amount of money. If people keep paying the same and there are less people they will get less money.
The younger voters who don't watch any of those but can now spend an extra 140 quid each year on Amazon and Netflix wont mind, the several thousand people hassled for not paying the license on the TV they don't have wont mind'. The few dozen people that go to jail because they cant afford the license fee probably will mind because they clearly want something for nothing. Most of the channels aren't trying anyway, they are buying in content from abroad, so nothing will change there.
Northampton North - Con maj 3,245. Green 1,503, LD 1,401. Leaving aside non-voters (who are likely to keep being non-voters), this means that to win this seat, Lab either need switchers from UKIP or direct Tory-Lab switchers
Opinions about Heathrow expansion are much more divided. And Zac's visible and vocal opposition will not necessarily go down well.
Commercial TV is largely ratings driven. How does non-Commercial TV decide on their output.
Is it paternalistically done by some sort of committee in the BBC, who decide how much time should be devoted to minority interests? If so, what methods do they use to decide?
Maybe they should ask the payers of the license fee. That way, they would be able to gauge just how strongly people wanted to see, for example, classical music concerts, or minority sports. Then they could weight the TV output accordingly. Democracy in action!
https://europeansnapshot.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/real-082014-10-26.png
It's interesting to note how the US and key European economies have fared since the 2008 crash.
New Thread
The vast majority of the population already do not watch your 'quality' BBC products. Why would they mourn their loss? Only 1/5th of the population watched the UK's most watched show in 2105, and that was on ITV.
And if Eastenders is so good then advertisers would be queueing up to pay for adverts in the middle of the programme and we could see ''Eastenders, Sponsored by Prozac'' before and after it. Why should anyone have to pay for that which people can sponsor? Did that stop the production of Brideshead Revisited? Poirot Morse Lewis The Avengers Sweeney Marple, crikey, Midsommer Murders etc etc... The notion that half decent television requires a licence fee is rubbish.
On Saturday night BBC - before the National Lottery Quiz we had yet another gormless quiz, the barsteward child of Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Late Late breakfast Show. As if this was not bad enough it was repeated on Sunday Night! This is public service broadcasting?