>>The BBC like the NHS is a much revered institution in this country.
That's the best you've got? Really?
If it's that revered, people wouldn't have to be forced to pay for it! Ditto of course, the NHS.
As aways, the underlying thrust of your argument is that if the funding method changes, there will be no BBC. That's simply not true. It would be different, but still there.
If people really 'revere' it, then they'll be happy to pay for it voluntarily, rather than by coercion and threat.
What's your problem anyway ? Stay happy with your stupid TV coverage which is basically a joke. I sometimes see your Sunday interviews. Your interviewers ask questions with a cotton-wool touch. Get Paxman over for a few days.
Tim B While you may have a point with ITV having major sports events on the BBC ensures they are open to all. I agree with your other points on the strength of the BBC's natural history and drama output etc
They are only "open to all" because everyone is forced to pay for them under threat of prosecution. How can you charge me/everyone on a compulsory basis for something and then tell us to rejoice because it's available?
And why should sports be "open to all". What if I didn't like golf? Or cricket? Or football? Why should I subsidise the ability of others to watch tennis on television if I hate it. Is there some socialist yuman rite for everyone to watch tennis on my dime?
If you want to watch snooker, pay for it yourself on a dedicated channel.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
It's worse than that, it's an unbelievable inefficient, regressive, expensive-to-collect tax. If the government thinks there should be a publicly funded broadcaster they should just give it money out of general revenue.
GeoffM The BBC does not cover all soccer matches or snooker tournaments, only events of major national interest such as the World Cup, or the World Championship which as the national broadcaster it should cover without only being on pay per view. That, along with funding for high quality science and nature, arts and culture and drama is the main reason for a taxpayer funded TV license, even if a minority of that funding could perhaps be given to non-BBC broadcasters on mainstream channels, night!
>>What's your problem anyway ? Stay happy with your stupid TV coverage which is basically a joke. I sometimes see your Sunday interviews. Your interviewers ask questions with a cotton-wool touch. Get Paxman over for a few days.
So now you resort to insults and throwing your toys out of the pram.
>>What's your problem anyway ? Stay happy with your stupid TV coverage which is basically a joke. I sometimes see your Sunday interviews. Your interviewers ask questions with a cotton-wool touch. Get Paxman over for a few days.
So now you resort to insults and throwing your toys out of the pram.
I'll count this as a win :-)
I agree. I'm off to bed with a smile and the glow of victory.
@NickP Yes, the BBC is so balanced it pulled a Newsnight report on a scandal involving the BBC with huge ramifications. That meant it was left to its competitor ITV to finally break the scandal to the nation. On the other hand, Newsnight did go ahead with this report.... Guardian - Timeline: how Newsnight's inaccurate Lord McAlpine report came about The BBC is the biggest vested interest when ever there is any discussion about broadcast media provision in the UK. But what I find most worrying about all the recent scandals surrounding the BBC, is the fact that we now have a taxpayer funded media organisation which seems to have an inbuilt protection which makes it almost untouchable when it comes to being accountable for its actions.
>>The BBC does not cover all soccer matches or snooker tournaments, only events of major national interest such as the World Cup, or the World Championship which as the national broadcaster it should cover without only being on pay per view, night!
Is the World Cup really of 'major national interest', or just something many soccer fans want to watch? The two are not the same. How does the result fundamentally affect the UK? It doesn't.
If the World Cup is indeed of major national interest, then if it was on Sky everyone would cough up, would they not?
Underlying all the 'national broadcaster' stuff is the view that the BBC is somehow 'special', whereas all that is really special about it is that you are forced on pain of imprisonment to fund it.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
I've been checking out Metcheck's overnight forecast Sunday/Monday over a number of locations in Southern England and over the past hour or so their projected rainfall has reduced considerably from a range of 30mm-40mm to a range of 18mm-30mm over the nine hour peak period between 21.00hrs Sunday and 06.00 hrs Monday. The expected wind force remains strong, ranging between 15 mph and 50 mph, but not extreme. Hopefully this storm is going to be less severe than originally feared.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The BBC like the NHS is a much revered institution in this country. I can bet that in the event of a national emergency, death of an well known public person, the vast majority of the public will automatically tune in to the BBC - even Tories !
Even the World Cup final - broadcast over other channels too, two thirds will watch the BBC. That's how it is.
Much revered "like the NHS"? Well Nick Palmer did say up-thread that the BBC was like cancer.
Be careful about quoting Nick Palmer's own words to him - he'll accuse you of stalking him.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
Japan has an opt-out system for NHK. The way it works is that they send a guy around to collect the fee, and you tell him you don't want to pay, and he tells you to pretend not to have a TV.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
Or even better why not make it an 'opt-in' - and really test just how much people value the service.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
"It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage."
How? Given the various means by which it is broadcast, from free-to-air to the web, I can't see a feasible way short of all TVs having smartcards. Sky find it hard enough to stop people accessing their pay services.
And they'd still have access to the BBC's fair-to-excellent radio services.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
Or even better why not make it an 'opt-in' - and really test just how much people value the service.
All the pressure for funding change comes from people who hate the compulsion of the BBC tax. The opt-out gives them exactly what they want.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
"It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage."
How? Given the various means by which it is broadcast, from free-to-air to the web, I can't see a feasible way short of all TVs having smartcards. Sky find it hard enough to stop people accessing their pay services.
And they'd still have access to the BBC's fair-to-excellent radio services.
Right, it sounds hard to do technically. If it could be done I'd be prepared to pay a fee to NHK not to transmit their New Year's programming to my in-laws' house.
Edited to add: I thought I had a good funding model for the BBC here but when I checked it turned out that X-Factor is ITV.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
"It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage."
How? Given the various means by which it is broadcast, from free-to-air to the web, I can't see a feasible way short of all TVs having smartcards. Sky find it hard enough to stop people accessing their pay services.
And they'd still have access to the BBC's fair-to-excellent radio services.
There will be ways round it, of course. Just as now I am sure there are plenty who don't pay the licence fee who watch BBC programming. But Sky is only legally available to its subscribers, the BBC could easily follow a similar model, with those opting out having their coverage blocked. I think we have to assume that those who vociferously object to paying the licence fee do so for honourable reasons so that once they have opted out they then not seek to get broadcasts illegally. As for radio, the BBC would have to make a call on that. They could spin out that part of the offering, use it as a loss leader, make some cuts or whatever. In the great scheme of things it is not a huge part of BBC spending.
There will be ways round it, of course. Just as now I am sure there are plenty who don't pay the licence fee who watch BBC programming. But Sky is only legally available to its subscribers, the BBC could easily follow a similar model, with those opting out having their coverage blocked. I think we have to assume that those who vociferously object to paying the licence fee do so for honourable reasons so that once they have opted out they then not seek to get broadcasts illegally. As for radio, the BBC would have to make a call on that. They could spin out that part of the offering, use it as a loss leader, make some cuts or whatever. In the great scheme of things it is not a huge part of BBC spending.
Again, how do you 'block coverage'? Websites can have logins, but free-to-air broadcast services are by their nature, free-to-air.
They are easy words to say, rather difficult to do in practice.
The BBC's going to face problems in the future as the technology advances further. Already there's some confusion over iPlayer, and when you need a TV licence to view content.
If you use a laptop to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV then by law you need a TV Licence. If you use a laptop to view television programmes after they are shown on TV – for example by downloading programmes or via streaming on-demand – then you don’t need a Licence.
In other words, delay the broadcast on iPlayer by a small period (so it is not 'virtually the same time'), and you don't need a licence fee.
Technology will destroy the licence fee model in the next couple of decades. It's done its job well, but the world's moved on. The BBC needs to move on as well - they are not immune to the pressures that already afflict the print media.
The recent scandals will make any move much harder politically.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
Or even better why not make it an 'opt-in' - and really test just how much people value the service.
All the pressure for funding change comes from people who hate the compulsion of the BBC tax. The opt-out gives them exactly what they want.
Ah just like the union political levy - are you frit of the opt-in?
Which of the three party leaders do you support the most in their approach to energy bills?
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40% Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33% Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7% Don't know - 20%
@Southam - Why not go for an independent judge-led inquiry, looking into completely objective facts? Here are three lines of enquiry:
- The political affiliation, if any, of BBC employees working in news and current affairs
- The newspapers read by BBC employees working in news and current affairs
- The frequency with which politicians of different parties interviewed on Today are interrupted by the interviewer.
No reasonable person could object to this sort of objective test, could they?
Well, Conservatives might, given the BBC is headed by a former Cabinet Minister of the blue persuasion, and that most of its senior politics presenters are Conservatives.
Remember all that spin about "Toenails" -- the Conservative BBC politics editor whom David Cameron tapped up to replace Andy Coulson? The clever pb Tories (and the astroturfers) spun the line that Robinson was a Brown ally and the deluded ones believed it.
Bah, I thought the clocks changed this evening, rather than this morning. Oh well.
F1: Weird story on tyres. Pirelli want the teams to limit their running in the race. 35 laps on the medium, 15 on the soft. The FIA is refusing to issue the advice as mandatory: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24690717
There's also more bad news for testing, as Pirelli (sensibly) wants more, but they and the teams disagree over who should pay: "But the teams are frustrated with Pirelli because it is refusing to pay the costs for the tests it wants to do. So far, Pirelli has only offered to pay for circuit hire.
Teams point out that F1 cars cost hundreds of pounds a lap to run, so a three-day test in which teams cover hundreds of laps would cost them tens of thousands of pounds or more at a time when costs in F1 are a major concern.
Pirelli has been told if it wants to do extra testing they must pay the entire costs of the teams involved. "
There's an obvious third party (the chaps who make most of the money from owning F1) who could and should pay.
Mr. L, you think it was the action of a Conservative to spin the yacht non-story for days, or to fail to report on Blair-Brown civil war, merely issuing an apology for not doing so a decade after the event?
Perhaps he was a Conservative in the past, in the same way many Labour figures were once Communists. Someone's political past and present are not necessarily the same.
Which of the three party leaders do you support the most in their approach to energy bills?
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40% Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33% Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7% Don't know - 20%
Government approval is down 6 on the week in the YouGov polls - most groups are flattish apart from current LD voters who are now -21 from -2 (down 19)...
There will be ways round it, of course. Just as now I am sure there are plenty who don't pay the licence fee who watch BBC programming. But Sky is only legally available to its subscribers, the BBC could easily follow a similar model, with those opting out having their coverage blocked. I think we have to assume that those who vociferously object to paying the licence fee do so for honourable reasons so that once they have opted out they then not seek to get broadcasts illegally. As for radio, the BBC would have to make a call on that. They could spin out that part of the offering, use it as a loss leader, make some cuts or whatever. In the great scheme of things it is not a huge part of BBC spending.
Again, how do you 'block coverage'? Websites can have logins, but free-to-air broadcast services are by their nature, free-to-air.
They are easy words to say, rather difficult to do in practice.
The BBC's going to face problems in the future as the technology advances further. Already there's some confusion over iPlayer, and when you need a TV licence to view content.
If you use a laptop to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV then by law you need a TV Licence. If you use a laptop to view television programmes after they are shown on TV – for example by downloading programmes or via streaming on-demand – then you don’t need a Licence.
In other words, delay the broadcast on iPlayer by a small period (so it is not 'virtually the same time'), and you don't need a licence fee.
Technology will destroy the licence fee model in the next couple of decades. It's done its job well, but the world's moved on. The BBC needs to move on as well - they are not immune to the pressures that already afflict the print media.
The recent scandals will make any move much harder politically.
If you have an opt-out, then you don't have free to air anymore. You do what Sky do and block coverage for people who don't pay to get it.
Labour lead at 6 (39-33). Significant drops for all three leaders in the leader ratings: Cameron down 8pts to -22, Miliband down 5pts to -31, Clegg down 4pts to -52, albeit in what appears to be a generally negative/bad tempered sample.
The more interesting secondaries are:
By 41/34 the sample believe the British economy is not growing, despite official figures to the contrary. A further 25% are not sure. Labour supporters (62/18) and UKIP supporters (50/25) are most likely to believe their own bleak (but no doubt expert) assessment of the economy is more accurate than the official figures.
The figures are even more negative when people are asked whether the economy is growing in their own area (22/55), with Lib Dem supporters moving to the negative camp.
Labour lead the Conservatives by only 2pts (26/24) on which party is most trusted to deal with the cost of living. Both are significantly outvoted by "None of them" (37).
This last finding is particularly significant and suggests Labour are getting little traction with their assault on the the so-called "cost of living crisis". That should give the Labour leadership cause for thought this morning. In a poll that gives Labour a six point lead over the Conservatives and where most of the secondaries are negative for the Government, and after weeks of leading with the cost-of-living theme and setting the Westminster agenda with it, the public only very narrowly prefer Labour on cost-of-living and largely doubt Labour can do anything meaningful about it.
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Nobody's going to put either of those in their manifesto either. The British people are deeply conservative about their beloved, disfunctional institutions.
The simplest solution to the BBC funding issue is an opt-out. If people do not want to pay the licence fee they should not have to. It should be easy enough to stop them receiving all BBC TV coverage. It would be interesting to see how many did stop paying. We may find that it turns out to be little more than a few posters on PB! Obviously radio and internet coverage would still be available, but the comparative cost of running those are very low, so it would either mean living with it or making a few cuts.
Or even better why not make it an 'opt-in' - and really test just how much people value the service.
All the pressure for funding change comes from people who hate the compulsion of the BBC tax. The opt-out gives them exactly what they want.
Ah just like the union political levy - are you frit of the opt-in?
Nope, you are giving people - such as yourself presumably - exactly what they want: the opportunity not to get the BBC on their TV screens. Not sure why you'd have a problem with that.
Mr. L, you think it was the action of a Conservative to spin the yacht non-story for days, or to fail to report on Blair-Brown civil war, merely issuing an apology for not doing so a decade after the event?
Perhaps he was a Conservative in the past, in the same way many Labour figures were once Communists. Someone's political past and present are not necessarily the same.
Yachtgate -- soliciting illegal donations from foreign donors -- was a legitimate story, even if in the end it fizzled out into "he said, she said".
I think Robinson is professional. Is he still a Conservative? Well, ask Gordon Brown, who, according to McBride's book, raged against "that bloody Tory".
Or ask the current Prime Minister who tried to recruit Robinson.
PBTories are known for their staunch defence of personal liberties. THey are surprisingly quite about this one.
They shouldn't have done it, but I'm not particularly surprised. The Americans are very robust in the pursuit about what they see as their national interest.
What is more surprising to me is Obama's absolute denial (via his spokesman) that he knew anything about it. That means that (a) either the NSA decided to bug the phone of a friendly head of state without getting Presidential approval and is therefore out of control; (b) Obama doesn't read his briefing materials / pay attention in his briefing sessions; or (c) Obama is lying.
I don't know which is true - and open to other suggestions - but none of those look good for him (speaking objectively - politically it will have b*gger all impact)
YouGov details don't seem to have been given here yet: 39/33/9/12, approval 27/59, the worst for a while. A generally grouchy sample - Cameron doing well -22 (down 7), Miliband doing well -31 (down 5), Clegg -52 (down 4),
Quick overview of findings:
The UK economy probably isn't growing (41-34) and certainly not in the respondent's area (55-22). Labour would be marginally better on the cost of living (26-24) but really everyone would be rubbish (37), all the energy ideas are popular, but if people have to choose they prefer the price freeze (39) to reducing green taxes (28) or a windfall tax (23). Green costs should continue but subsidised by "other taxes" instead of an energy levy (39 vs 34 cut the green subsidies and 15 carry on as now). Nobody is trusted to protect energy needs (38 - Con and Lab both 22). Spending money to help nuclear, wind, solar and tidal power all very popular (48/51/60/62). New nuke power station a good idea (49-30), but not with those horrid French and Chinese (28-55) or, contradicting the earlier finding, a Government subsidy (26-49).
The NHS has got worse but personal experience is good.The NHS should keep roviding a 7-day service even for minor things, and nobody should be paid more to do it.
Much revered "like the NHS"? Well Nick Palmer did say up-thread that the BBC was like cancer.
As I'm in the public eye I need to humourlessly stamp on misquotes - I said it was like an imperfect cancer cure, not like cancer. The cancer is the absence of other media with a mission to provide balanced coverage.
TimB: I bow to your knowledge of how money is raised, but it's frankly obvious that a scheme based on voluntary fund-raising will lean heavily on people with spare discretionary cash. I think that provision of factual information is important enough to need taxpayer funding, and grumbles about bias should be addressed rather than ceasing to try to have an impartiasl broadcaster.
Ed took Dave's advice and switched energy providers when his bill increased
Any reason why he shouldn't ? He didn't break any pledge did he ? He will do even better. After June 2015, he will freeze his energy bill [ and yours ] for 20 months !
BTW: first utility (one of the cheaper providers) is now only offering fixes until the end of May 2015. That gives EdM about 3 weeks to act if he is going to get his price freeze in (assuming he wins the election)
Again, how do you 'block coverage'? Websites can have logins, but free-to-air broadcast services are by their nature, free-to-air.
They are easy words to say, rather difficult to do in practice.
The BBC's going to face problems in the future as the technology advances further. Already there's some confusion over iPlayer, and when you need a TV licence to view content.
If you use a laptop to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV then by law you need a TV Licence. If you use a laptop to view television programmes after they are shown on TV – for example by downloading programmes or via streaming on-demand – then you don’t need a Licence.
In other words, delay the broadcast on iPlayer by a small period (so it is not 'virtually the same time'), and you don't need a licence fee.
Technology will destroy the licence fee model in the next couple of decades. It's done its job well, but the world's moved on. The BBC needs to move on as well - they are not immune to the pressures that already afflict the print media.
The recent scandals will make any move much harder politically.
If you have an opt-out, then you don't have free to air anymore. You do what Sky do and block coverage for people who don't pay to get it.
How on Earth would that work? How do you stop them having 'free to air'? Erect RF screened rooms around their homes? And even if it did work, you'd stop them getting any free-to-air services broadcast on non-BBC channels.
This shows the utter ludicrousness of the BBCs position in the market. You have to have a TV licence, even if you don't use its services. In the world you describe, you'd need a BBC licence just to watch other channels.
It worked (just) in the past, when there were a few channels. The model's utterly borken nowadays.
Sky don't block; they use smartcards in their receivers and encrypted broadcasts, and try to carefully manage their receiver infrastructure such as the dishes.
The moment the BBC encrypts its broadcasts, it'll become just another broadcaster.
Mr. L, there was no donation. No money was sought, no money was given, no money was offered.
I'd say 'follow the money', but there was none.
It was an absolute non-story and showed the media at their idiotic worst.
I'm not sure I consider Gordon Brown to be the most reasonable and objective judge of character, given his fondness for Balls, Miliband and McBride.
Cameron's attempt to recruit Robinson failed. Leaving aside poor judgement on his part, it hardly suggests Robinson's a Conservative when he declined the job.
Nope, you are giving people - such as yourself presumably - exactly what they want: the opportunity not to get the BBC on their TV screens. Not sure why you'd have a problem with that.
Even less sure why you are frit of the opt-in. Surely if everyone loves the BBC as you claim they'll be clamouring to opt-in to the BBC. After all no-one has to opt out of Sky.
On topic, it's looks, on the surface, as though the LibDem > Lab switchers are just starting to come back.
I wonder!!!!
Some will but I think there'll be more from UKIP back to the Conservatives.
I don't think we can predict the liklihood of LD-Lab switchers returning home until we see how the Con/LD coalition separates and how the LDs position themselves at the next election. For example, I would expect there would be many more Lab-LD returners if the LDs ruled out forming another coalition with the Conservatives. If, as I believe they should for the sake of their long-term credibility, the LDs refuse to rule out participating in another coalition with the Conservatives, this would, I suggest, lead to fewer erstwhile voters returning.
YouGov has UKIP at 12% with 30% of UKIP supporters acknowledging the Government is managing the economy well and 23% thinking David Cameron is doing a good job. That suggests there is a decent chunk of formerly Conservative support that one would expect to drift back nearer to the election. I am sceptical that it will be sufficient. Cameron needs to find additional support from elsewhere; Apolitical centrists, "liberal" liberal demorats, Labour-leaning realists and disaffected Miliband-mockers. Most of those categories are not as catchy as "Mondeo Man" and "Worcester Woman", I accept.
Which of the three party leaders do you support the most in their approach to energy bills?
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40% Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33% Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7% Don't know - 20%
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
I would look at creating a publicly funded independent board (perhaps elected rather than appointed by the government of the day - need to make sure that it is not politically biased). This could have a far smaller fund (and perhaps augmented by donations) which would fund certain specific areas that are perceived as needing support - e.g. I believe local TV news and regional language programming probably need support. *Any* production company/broadcaster could then pitch for these funds to provide this service). All the BBC's commercial activities it can self-fund.
As an example: why is the Voice funded by the state? I know a lot of people enjoy it, but the purpose of state funding is not to provide bread & circuses but to meet market gaps.
And in doing so, he followed the PM's advice. As a good Consumer Watch dog knows, always look around for the best and cheapest deal to help encourage competition. How is fixing prices in the short term going to provide a better service for energy customers, or aid the future investment needed to help meet our energy needs? You start playing this game with energy prices, and you send out a message that UKplc isn't going to encourage profitable investment opportunities.
There was a real danger point for the SNP last week when INEOS announced it was going to close the Grangemouth petrol chemicals plant. Having recently brought Prestwick Airport back into public ownership, and also pledged to renationalise Royal Mail in an Independent Scotland. There was the start of a campaign demanding they nationalise the Grangemouth Plant to save those lost jobs. The SNP had left themselves open to creating unrealistic expectations they just could not possible meet. But can imagine the kind of message this must all be sending out to investors if Scotland was to go Independent?
Ed took Dave's advice and switched energy providers when his bill increased
Any reason why he shouldn't ? He didn't break any pledge did he ? He will do even better. After June 2015, he will freeze his energy bill [ and yours ] for 20 months !
Yes , a clear message that it will be much better to do business in an independent Scotland, able to deal with a forward thinking positive government.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
I've been checking out Metcheck's overnight forecast Sunday/Monday over a number of locations in Southern England and over the past hour or so their projected rainfall has reduced considerably from a range of 30mm-40mm to a range of 18mm-30mm over the nine hour peak period between 21.00hrs Sunday and 06.00 hrs Monday. The expected wind force remains strong, ranging between 15 mph and 50 mph, but not extreme. Hopefully this storm is going to be less severe than originally feared.
Bunch of softies , that sounds like a normal spring day. It is howling up here and heavy rain, not unusual.
Bah, I thought the clocks changed this evening, rather than this morning. Oh well.
F1: Weird story on tyres. Pirelli want the teams to limit their running in the race. 35 laps on the medium, 15 on the soft. The FIA is refusing to issue the advice as mandatory: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24690717
There's also more bad news for testing, as Pirelli (sensibly) wants more, but they and the teams disagree over who should pay: "But the teams are frustrated with Pirelli because it is refusing to pay the costs for the tests it wants to do. So far, Pirelli has only offered to pay for circuit hire.
Teams point out that F1 cars cost hundreds of pounds a lap to run, so a three-day test in which teams cover hundreds of laps would cost them tens of thousands of pounds or more at a time when costs in F1 are a major concern.
Pirelli has been told if it wants to do extra testing they must pay the entire costs of the teams involved. "
There's an obvious third party (the chaps who make most of the money from owning F1) who could and should pay.
Morris , they normally change in the middle of the night when normal people are sleeping. Had changed when I awoke at 6am.
YouGov details don't seem to have been given here yet:
all the energy ideas are popular, but if people have to choose they prefer the price freeze (39) to reducing green taxes (28) or a windfall tax (23). Green costs should continue but subsidised by "other taxes" instead of an energy levy (39 vs 34 cut the green subsidies and 15 carry on as now).
How does that gel with the forced choice(?) stats Millsy posted upthread:
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40% Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33% Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7% Don't know - 20%
The cancer is the absence of other media with a mission to provide balanced coverage.
My understanding is that all of the broadcast media have exactly the same obligations as the BBC in terms of balanced coverage?
TimB: I think that provision of factual information is important enough to need taxpayer funding, and grumbles about bias should be addressed rather than ceasing to try to have an impartiasl broadcaster.
I am sure that only a small proportion of the BBC's funding goes on "factual information". There is a case for continuing to support that publicly. As for the rest, why should someone subsidise sports or culture or drama if it isn't of interest to them - those are all areas that are well provided by the private sector.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Which of the three party leaders do you support the most in their approach to energy bills?
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40% Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33% Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7% Don't know - 20%
Nope, you are giving people - such as yourself presumably - exactly what they want: the opportunity not to get the BBC on their TV screens. Not sure why you'd have a problem with that.
Even less sure why you are frit of the opt-in. Surely if everyone loves the BBC as you claim they'll be clamouring to opt-in to the BBC. After all no-one has to opt out of Sky.
Sky is a private company that makes money for its shareholders.
Again, how do you 'block coverage'? Websites can have logins, but free-to-air broadcast services are by their nature, free-to-air.
They are easy words to say, rather difficult to do in practice.
The BBC's going to face problems in the future as the technology advances further. Already there's some confusion over iPlayer, and when you need a TV licence to view content.
If you use a laptop to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV then by law you need a TV Licence. If you use a laptop to view television programmes after they are shown on TV – for example by downloading programmes or via streaming on-demand – then you don’t need a Licence.
In other words, delay the broadcast on iPlayer by a small period (so it is not 'virtually the same time'), and you don't need a licence fee.
Technology will destroy the licence fee model in the next couple of decades. It's done its job well, but the world's moved on. The BBC needs to move on as well - they are not immune to the pressures that already afflict the print media.
The recent scandals will make any move much harder politically.
If you have an opt-out, then you don't have free to air anymore. You do what Sky do and block coverage for people who don't pay to get it.
How on Earth would that work? How do you stop them having 'free to air'? Erect RF screened rooms around their homes? And even if it did work, you'd stop them getting any free-to-air services broadcast on non-BBC channels.
This shows the utter ludicrousness of the BBCs position in the market. You have to have a TV licence, even if you don't use its services. In the world you describe, you'd need a BBC licence just to watch other channels.
It worked (just) in the past, when there were a few channels. The model's utterly borken nowadays.
Sky don't block; they use smartcards in their receivers and encrypted broadcasts, and try to carefully manage their receiver infrastructure such as the dishes.
The moment the BBC encrypts its broadcasts, it'll become just another broadcaster.
No it doesn't. It is not a private, profit-driven company.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Yes, really. The BBC covers world, national and regional news, not local.
(I'm not claiming it's the only impact - the loss of classified revenue is huge. But the BBC websites make it much much harder for them to develop a new digital business model vs. the likes of the Guardian and the Mail which have both more resources and an international brand)
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Yes, really. The BBC covers world, national and regional news, not local.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Yes, really. The BBC covers world, national and regional news, not local.
Headlines from JJ's link:
Skaters attempt 30 hour hockey game (in Fareham, Hampshire) Warnings ahead of expected storm (more national, but the detail focuses on ferry crossings from Brittany) Shetland crash survivors want answer (story built around a bloke from Winchester)
Would you classify those as "world", "national", "regional", or "local"?
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Yes, really. The BBC covers world, national and regional news, not local.
It covers little from Scotland , a few odd minutes here and there and dire local news programmes that repeat most of the English stuff.
No it doesn't. It is not a private, profit-driven company.
Neither's Channel 4, and that will be affected by any changes.
So basically, you came up with an idea, you've got no idea how it will be implemented (and even if it could), and care little about the effect it will have on the larger market.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Yes, really. The BBC covers world, national and regional news, not local.
It covers little from Scotland , a few odd minutes here and there and dire local news programmes that repeat most of the English stuff.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Yes, really. The BBC covers world, national and regional news, not local.
It covers little from Scotland , a few odd minutes here and there and dire local news programmes that repeat most of the English stuff.
Mr. L, there was no donation. No money was sought, no money was given, no money was offered.
I'd say 'follow the money', but there was none.
It was an absolute non-story and showed the media at their idiotic worst.
I'm not sure I consider Gordon Brown to be the most reasonable and objective judge of character, given his fondness for Balls, Miliband and McBride.
Cameron's attempt to recruit Robinson failed. Leaving aside poor judgement on his part, it hardly suggests Robinson's a Conservative when he declined the job.
Yachtgate -- if no donation was sought, why was Lord Feldman there? As to bias, all the papers covered the story so whatever happened in Corfu, clearly this was not just socialists at Al-Beeb flying a kite.
The Prime Minister tried to recruit Robinson. Even after Robinson declined, Cameron sought his advice.
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The bigger issue is that there is so much the BBC does which is not "public service broadcasting" and which crowds out private actors. For instance look at the devastating impact the free BBC news website has had on local newspapers.
None at all. The BBC news site does not cover local news, and it is not the BBC which has made off with their advertisers.
Yes, really. The BBC covers world, national and regional news, not local.
Headlines from JJ's link:
Skaters attempt 30 hour hockey game (in Fareham, Hampshire) Warnings ahead of expected storm (more national, but the detail focuses on ferry crossings from Brittany) Shetland crash survivors want answer (story built around a bloke from Winchester)
Would you classify those as "world", "national", "regional", or "local"?
Regional. Why don't you pop out, actually buy a local paper, and see how many of its stories you can find on the BBC's news pages?
@rob_marchant: For those irritated by the Times paywall, the Mail has summarised the unravelling of Unite's case over Falkirk here: http://t.co/v11n0wWPo5
No it doesn't. It is not a private, profit-driven company.
Neither's Channel 4, and that will be affected by any changes.
So basically, you came up with an idea, you've got no idea how it will be implemented (and even if it could), and care little about the effect it will have on the larger market.
You only care to preserve the BBC.
What a complete load of rubbish. I came up with an idea. It will work. You don't like it. Sorry.
Channel 4 News could still be free to view. As could BBC News for that matter. Sky News is now, of course.
Comments
And why should sports be "open to all". What if I didn't like golf? Or cricket? Or football? Why should I subsidise the ability of others to watch tennis on television if I hate it. Is there some socialist yuman rite for everyone to watch tennis on my dime?
If you want to watch snooker, pay for it yourself on a dedicated channel.
Stop digging.
>>What's your problem anyway ? Stay happy with your stupid TV coverage which is basically a joke. I sometimes see your Sunday interviews. Your interviewers ask questions with a cotton-wool touch. Get Paxman over for a few days.
So now you resort to insults and throwing your toys out of the pram.
I'll count this as a win :-)
Guardian - Timeline: how Newsnight's inaccurate Lord McAlpine report came about
The BBC is the biggest vested interest when ever there is any discussion about broadcast media provision in the UK. But what I find most worrying about all the recent scandals surrounding the BBC, is the fact that we now have a taxpayer funded media organisation which seems to have an inbuilt protection which makes it almost untouchable when it comes to being accountable for its actions.
>>The BBC does not cover all soccer matches or snooker tournaments, only events of major national interest such as the World Cup, or the World Championship which as the national broadcaster it should cover without only being on pay per view, night!
Is the World Cup really of 'major national interest', or just something many soccer fans want to watch? The two are not the same. How does the result fundamentally affect the UK? It doesn't.
If the World Cup is indeed of major national interest, then if it was on Sky everyone would cough up, would they not?
Underlying all the 'national broadcaster' stuff is the view that the BBC is somehow 'special', whereas all that is really special about it is that you are forced on pain of imprisonment to fund it.
>>I agree. I'm off to bed with a smile and the glow of victory.
That's not a glow - it's the warm feeling you get when you pee in your pants :-)
>>Why are you Tories scared to put in a manifesto commitment to get rid of the BBC ? Let's see how popular that is.
Nobody mentioned getting rid of the BBC. You are presenting a false choice. All that is under discussion is changing the funding model. NOBODY suggested getting rid of the BBC. The suggestions were to either privatize it or change the funding model to a PBS like one.
Hopefully this storm is going to be less severe than originally feared.
I forget about the clocks going back ....
How? Given the various means by which it is broadcast, from free-to-air to the web, I can't see a feasible way short of all TVs having smartcards. Sky find it hard enough to stop people accessing their pay services.
And they'd still have access to the BBC's fair-to-excellent radio services.
Edited to add: I thought I had a good funding model for the BBC here but when I checked it turned out that X-Factor is ITV.
They are easy words to say, rather difficult to do in practice.
The BBC's going to face problems in the future as the technology advances further. Already there's some confusion over iPlayer, and when you need a TV licence to view content. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16/
In other words, delay the broadcast on iPlayer by a small period (so it is not 'virtually the same time'), and you don't need a licence fee.
Technology will destroy the licence fee model in the next couple of decades. It's done its job well, but the world's moved on. The BBC needs to move on as well - they are not immune to the pressures that already afflict the print media.
The recent scandals will make any move much harder politically.
I wonder!!!!
Which of the three party leaders do you support the most in their approach to energy bills?
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40%
Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33%
Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7%
Don't know - 20%
http://survation.com/2013/10/the-great-uk-energy-debate-survation-take-a-detailed-look-for-the-mail-on-sunday/
Remember all that spin about "Toenails" -- the Conservative BBC politics editor whom David Cameron tapped up to replace Andy Coulson? The clever pb Tories (and the astroturfers) spun the line that Robinson was a Brown ally and the deluded ones believed it.
Bah, I thought the clocks changed this evening, rather than this morning. Oh well.
F1: Weird story on tyres. Pirelli want the teams to limit their running in the race. 35 laps on the medium, 15 on the soft. The FIA is refusing to issue the advice as mandatory:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24690717
There's also more bad news for testing, as Pirelli (sensibly) wants more, but they and the teams disagree over who should pay:
"But the teams are frustrated with Pirelli because it is refusing to pay the costs for the tests it wants to do. So far, Pirelli has only offered to pay for circuit hire.
Teams point out that F1 cars cost hundreds of pounds a lap to run, so a three-day test in which teams cover hundreds of laps would cost them tens of thousands of pounds or more at a time when costs in F1 are a major concern.
Pirelli has been told if it wants to do extra testing they must pay the entire costs of the teams involved. "
There's an obvious third party (the chaps who make most of the money from owning F1) who could and should pay.
Perhaps he was a Conservative in the past, in the same way many Labour figures were once Communists. Someone's political past and present are not necessarily the same.
In other words, delay the broadcast on iPlayer by a small period (so it is not 'virtually the same time'), and you don't need a licence fee.
Technology will destroy the licence fee model in the next couple of decades. It's done its job well, but the world's moved on. The BBC needs to move on as well - they are not immune to the pressures that already afflict the print media.
The recent scandals will make any move much harder politically.
If you have an opt-out, then you don't have free to air anymore. You do what Sky do and block coverage for people who don't pay to get it.
Labour lead at 6 (39-33). Significant drops for all three leaders in the leader ratings: Cameron down 8pts to -22, Miliband down 5pts to -31, Clegg down 4pts to -52, albeit in what appears to be a generally negative/bad tempered sample.
The more interesting secondaries are:
By 41/34 the sample believe the British economy is not growing, despite official figures to the contrary. A further 25% are not sure. Labour supporters (62/18) and UKIP supporters (50/25) are most likely to believe their own bleak (but no doubt expert) assessment of the economy is more accurate than the official figures.
The figures are even more negative when people are asked whether the economy is growing in their own area (22/55), with Lib Dem supporters moving to the negative camp.
Labour lead the Conservatives by only 2pts (26/24) on which party is most trusted to deal with the cost of living. Both are significantly outvoted by "None of them" (37).
This last finding is particularly significant and suggests Labour are getting little traction with their assault on the the so-called "cost of living crisis". That should give the Labour leadership cause for thought this morning. In a poll that gives Labour a six point lead over the Conservatives and where most of the secondaries are negative for the Government, and after weeks of leading with the cost-of-living theme and setting the Westminster agenda with it, the public only very narrowly prefer Labour on cost-of-living and largely doubt Labour can do anything meaningful about it.
I think Robinson is professional. Is he still a Conservative? Well, ask Gordon Brown, who, according to McBride's book, raged against "that bloody Tory".
Or ask the current Prime Minister who tried to recruit Robinson.
What is more surprising to me is Obama's absolute denial (via his spokesman) that he knew anything about it. That means that (a) either the NSA decided to bug the phone of a friendly head of state without getting Presidential approval and is therefore out of control; (b) Obama doesn't read his briefing materials / pay attention in his briefing sessions; or (c) Obama is lying.
I don't know which is true - and open to other suggestions - but none of those look good for him (speaking objectively - politically it will have b*gger all impact)
Quick overview of findings:
The UK economy probably isn't growing (41-34) and certainly not in the respondent's area (55-22). Labour would be marginally better on the cost of living (26-24) but really everyone would be rubbish (37), all the energy ideas are popular, but if people have to choose they prefer the price freeze (39) to reducing green taxes (28) or a windfall tax (23). Green costs should continue but subsidised by "other taxes" instead of an energy levy (39 vs 34 cut the green subsidies and 15 carry on as now). Nobody is trusted to protect energy needs (38 - Con and Lab both 22). Spending money to help nuclear, wind, solar and tidal power all very popular (48/51/60/62). New nuke power station a good idea (49-30), but not with those horrid French and Chinese (28-55) or, contradicting the earlier finding, a Government subsidy (26-49).
The NHS has got worse but personal experience is good.The NHS should keep roviding a 7-day service even for minor things, and nobody should be paid more to do it. As I'm in the public eye I need to humourlessly stamp on misquotes - I said it was like an imperfect cancer cure, not like cancer. The cancer is the absence of other media with a mission to provide balanced coverage.
TimB: I bow to your knowledge of how money is raised, but it's frankly obvious that a scheme based on voluntary fund-raising will lean heavily on people with spare discretionary cash. I think that provision of factual information is important enough to need taxpayer funding, and grumbles about bias should be addressed rather than ceasing to try to have an impartiasl broadcaster.
How on Earth would that work? How do you stop them having 'free to air'? Erect RF screened rooms around their homes? And even if it did work, you'd stop them getting any free-to-air services broadcast on non-BBC channels.
This shows the utter ludicrousness of the BBCs position in the market. You have to have a TV licence, even if you don't use its services. In the world you describe, you'd need a BBC licence just to watch other channels.
It worked (just) in the past, when there were a few channels. The model's utterly borken nowadays.
Sky don't block; they use smartcards in their receivers and encrypted broadcasts, and try to carefully manage their receiver infrastructure such as the dishes.
The moment the BBC encrypts its broadcasts, it'll become just another broadcaster.
I'd say 'follow the money', but there was none.
It was an absolute non-story and showed the media at their idiotic worst.
I'm not sure I consider Gordon Brown to be the most reasonable and objective judge of character, given his fondness for Balls, Miliband and McBride.
Cameron's attempt to recruit Robinson failed. Leaving aside poor judgement on his part, it hardly suggests Robinson's a Conservative when he declined the job.
Nope, you are giving people - such as yourself presumably - exactly what they want: the opportunity not to get the BBC on their TV screens. Not sure why you'd have a problem with that.
Even less sure why you are frit of the opt-in. Surely if everyone loves the BBC as you claim they'll be clamouring to opt-in to the BBC. After all no-one has to opt out of Sky.
YouGov has UKIP at 12% with 30% of UKIP supporters acknowledging the Government is managing the economy well and 23% thinking David Cameron is doing a good job. That suggests there is a decent chunk of formerly Conservative support that one would expect to drift back nearer to the election. I am sceptical that it will be sufficient. Cameron needs to find additional support from elsewhere; Apolitical centrists, "liberal" liberal demorats, Labour-leaning realists and disaffected Miliband-mockers. Most of those categories are not as catchy as "Mondeo Man" and "Worcester Woman", I accept.
I would look at creating a publicly funded independent board (perhaps elected rather than appointed by the government of the day - need to make sure that it is not politically biased). This could have a far smaller fund (and perhaps augmented by donations) which would fund certain specific areas that are perceived as needing support - e.g. I believe local TV news and regional language programming probably need support. *Any* production company/broadcaster could then pitch for these funds to provide this service). All the BBC's commercial activities it can self-fund.
As an example: why is the Voice funded by the state? I know a lot of people enjoy it, but the purpose of state funding is not to provide bread & circuses but to meet market gaps.
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40%
Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33%
Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7%
Don't know - 20% My understanding is that all of the broadcast media have exactly the same obligations as the BBC in terms of balanced coverage? I am sure that only a small proportion of the BBC's funding goes on "factual information". There is a case for continuing to support that publicly. As for the rest, why should someone subsidise sports or culture or drama if it isn't of interest to them - those are all areas that are well provided by the private sector.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/hampshire/
The 3 leader choice has been left out.
Which of the three party leaders do you support the most in their approach to energy bills?
David Cameron (lowest tarriff and cut green taxes in order to reduce bills) - 40%
Ed Miliband (freeze energy bills and reform energy market) - 33%
Nick Clegg (retain green taxes, increase efficiency, and subsidise fuel poverty) - 7%
Don't know - 20%
http://survation.com/2013/10/the-great-uk-energy-debate-survation-take-a-detailed-look-for-the-mail-on-sunday/
I think this makes an interesting companion to the poll information above in the thread header.
Even less sure why you are frit of the opt-in. Surely if everyone loves the BBC as you claim they'll be clamouring to opt-in to the BBC. After all no-one has to opt out of Sky.
Sky is a private company that makes money for its shareholders.
This shows the utter ludicrousness of the BBCs position in the market. You have to have a TV licence, even if you don't use its services. In the world you describe, you'd need a BBC licence just to watch other channels.
It worked (just) in the past, when there were a few channels. The model's utterly borken nowadays.
Sky don't block; they use smartcards in their receivers and encrypted broadcasts, and try to carefully manage their receiver infrastructure such as the dishes.
The moment the BBC encrypts its broadcasts, it'll become just another broadcaster.
No it doesn't. It is not a private, profit-driven company.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/essex/
(I'm not claiming it's the only impact - the loss of classified revenue is huge. But the BBC websites make it much much harder for them to develop a new digital business model vs. the likes of the Guardian and the Mail which have both more resources and an international brand)
Skaters attempt 30 hour hockey game (in Fareham, Hampshire)
Warnings ahead of expected storm (more national, but the detail focuses on ferry crossings from Brittany)
Shetland crash survivors want answer (story built around a bloke from Winchester)
Would you classify those as "world", "national", "regional", or "local"?
So basically, you came up with an idea, you've got no idea how it will be implemented (and even if it could), and care little about the effect it will have on the larger market.
You only care to preserve the BBC.
This has more Scottish stuff on it - we are talking about websites, not the broadcast news
"Fish shoal sculpture to be installed in Ullapool"
It covers all the important stuff
The Prime Minister tried to recruit Robinson. Even after Robinson declined, Cameron sought his advice.
Channel 4 News could still be free to view. As could BBC News for that matter. Sky News is now, of course.