Can't we put the going round in circles whining about the BBC on PB2, where the going round in circles whining car engines stuff is.
Yes we know the PB Tea Partiers think the BBC is run by Communist eco warriors. It's reiterated whenever the Tories aren't doing well in the polls.
The PB Tory spammers out in force again. I went to bed when Plato popped up out of her normal shift pattern last night to do some overtime, but she's back with an identical posting today.
Sky Sports isn't bad value at the moment for £34pcm as you get the rugby internationals, the Ashes and indeed and of course all the football, most of them in HD, so I have signed up. The rest of their programming is pretty mediocre and therefore I always cancel my sub (through Virgin) when the cricket isn't on.
The BBC, by contrast, is superb value at around £12 a month. I suppose if you have loads of time on your hands you might sign up to Sky for the mega US series - but I can't devote 24 hours of my life to watching those so probably better for the box-set fetishists on here.
What seems to be attracting little comment on the ICM poll is that over 70% of respondents - the biggest number in the poll, I think - do not believe that the BBC is biased to the left.
I'm not interested in sport and if I want to see a film I'll have an outing to the cinema or wait until it's a fiver in HMV. Ditto buy or borrow boxed sets. A lot of stuff on the channels is filler garbage.
If you paid monthly for the BBC, plus wanted to watch sport etc... you could be shelling out a grand/1500 a year.
Totally agree - I hope the moderators take appropriate action. I used to post a lot more regularly on here - but this sort of posting from Tim (and his colleagues) is exactly why I and others have ceased to use the site as much.
As there has already been 1.8% growth this year,are they suggesting growth this quarter will be negative?
YoY growth figures are just as strongly affected by last year's quarterly growth rates as this - next year already has loads of growth baked in, this year was fighting uphill.
The CBI have made this prediction of 1.4 %growth today.As we have already had more growth than that so far,I just wondered whether they are just being cautious or is there more to it than that?
1.4% refers to how much more output there will be in total 2013 than 2012.
So for example, the 0.8% growth we just had does not equal 0.8% contribution towards the annual rate, because it only applies to the 2nd half of this year. The same quarter in 2012 ends up having more effect on the 2013 annual growth rate.
Conversely, the strong growth in the 2nd half of this year mean next year will be a very strong year on the annual figure, even if the quarterly figures slacken off.
@Josias - I am not very technical, so it is probably me missing something, but ....
... As I understand it TV in the UK is now fully digitised. Everyone does essentially watch through a platform - Freeview, Virgin, Sky etc (and the BBC actually pays to be on the privately-owned platforms, bizarrely enough). But given that, why would it be difficult to block BBC channel reception for people who opt out of paying the licence fee? It may need some technical transitioning, but surely it is relatively simple to do. There would be an issue with radio and internet, but that would be a call for the BBC to make. Sky runs plenty of free to access websites and also partners with radio stations - it had a tie-up with TalkSport for a while if memory serves me right. Other stations, such as ITV and Channel 4, could stay free to view via the same platforms, just as they are now.
All of the above does not seem that tricky to me, which means there is bound to be a huge flaw somewhere; but if on the off-chance I am right, it looks a pretty neat solution to me by easily allowing anyone who does not want to pay the licence fee not to have to, without adversely affecting those who do.
I'm a little bit technical, and could provide a quick answer, followed up by research
(1) opt in-out for people on Sky would be straightforward. (2) Many TVs have what's called a CI slot. You can put a card in there that gives you access to additional channels. The channels are transmitted over the air in an encrypted form. Again, this would be straightforward. (3) BBC channels can be encrypted and used with a CI card. As I understand, most if not all TVs manufactured within the last ten years have a CI card built in. It should be possible to get freeview style boxes with CI cards. (4) Internet TV shouldn't be too difficult.
Of course, this doesn't solve the multi-room problem. At present, if you pay the licence fee, you can watch on as many TVs as you like, providing they're in your house.
What's disgusting about saying I think I should subsidise medical care for the disabled despite not having a disability myself, Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for services we don't use.
You can make that point perfectly well without bringing up a politician's personal tragedy. But not enough leverage in that I suppose.
I wonder how many households do not watch or listen to any BBC output. It would be interesting to find out. Clearly all those who believe the BBC is biased have to subject themselves to quite a bit of coverage to make that claim. However, putting that to one side, my point here is more about the politics of changing the current situation. Basically, it would mean a lot of people paying more than they do now and/or it would mean a lot more advertising on all channels - meaning less revenues for all and a consequent reduction in programme quality and choice.
I am afraid the argument about quality and choice from the BBC is one that lost much resonance many years ago.
The BBC is a long way from producing the best programmes these days in almost every genre. Even those programmes they do commission are often made by private companies outside the BBC. If the programmes are good enough to be shown they would appear on other channels if the BBC were not there.
Like a lot of people these days the BBC is a long way down my choice of channels for viewing. There is only one programme I watch 'religiously' (when it is actually on) and certainly when it comes to current affairs and news output I simply don't watch the BBC output as I find it predictable and biased.
Would the world be a worse place without the BBC as it is today? Maybe, maybe not. But is it worth paying £145 a year for? For me certainly not.
The issue would be is the £145 better value than the alternative? For you, maybe not; but until the answer is the same for a lot more voters, the licence fee will remain, because politically getting rid of it would be dynamite - especially after what Schapps said last week.
Totally agree - I hope the moderators take appropriate action. I used to post a lot more regularly on here - but this sort of posting from Tim (and his colleagues) is exactly why I and others have ceased to use the site as much.
Shameful from Tim, truly shameful.
I also think I should subsidise Gordon Browns sons medical treatment, now grow up.
Sadly one is dead, the others are not... can't you see that in your point scoring equivalency?
@Josias - I am not very technical, so it is probably me missing something, but ....
(snip)
Blocking reception of transmitted signals in a local area is not easy. All the user needs is a suitable antenna or dish to receive the signal (which is one of the reasons why Sky apparently monitor which houses have satellite dishes). If the signal is unencrypted, then the received signal can be demuxed, decoded and viewed. This means that you cannot stop pirates from receiving the signal (as it is not transmitted in the same manner, cable is a slightly different case).
For this reason, subscriber and pay-per-view services such as Sky are generally encrypted. To decode them, you need a box capable of doing so. This is mainly done via a subscriber smartcard and CAM (1), and increasingly via upstream Internet connection as well. By their very nature, most free-to air boxes do not have any need for smartcards.
If the BBC were to move to a subscriber system, then all the free-to-air boxes (including those built-in to TVs) would need replacing. This would not be popular after people have been forced to buy digital boxes over the last few years, and also very, very expensive.
This is a simplification and there are variations, but that is generally the situation in the UK from memory (I have not been directly in that segment of the industry for a few years).
Additionally, if the BBC were to move to a subscriber system, they have just lost a massive USP.
Having said all that, a friend of mine contended a few months ago that *all* terrestrial broadcasting will be put onto the Internet in the next couple of decades, freeing up lots of transmission frequencies for the government to sell. There are some (ahem) technical difficulties in this, but if it happens it would make the BBC situation both easier and more complex.
What's disgusting about saying I think I should subsidise medical care for the disabled despite not having a disability myself, Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for services we don't use.
You can make that point perfectly well without bringing up a politician's personal tragedy. But not enough leverage in that I suppose.
I apologise for bringing up your education, you're right, it was cruel and heartless to refer to that wasteful experience.
@RichardTyndall - I should add that I believe there should be a way to allow you to opt out of paying the licence fee. It is ridiculous you have to pay it if you do not use its services. I thought that the new digitised platforms would easily allow for that, but it seems I may be wrong.
Quite. And if I want to watch Sky over the interwebs - I need a subscriber number - its really very easy for this to be replicated for the BBC - its all there.
And since everyone is now digital...its not beyond the techies to devise a way to do what every other country does with the same challenge or even to lead the way!
@Josias - I am not very technical, so it is probably me missing something, but ....
... As I understand it TV in the UK is now fully digitised. Everyone does essentially watch through a platform - Freeview, Virgin, Sky etc (and the BBC actually pays to be on the privately-owned platforms, bizarrely enough). But given that, why would it be difficult to block BBC channel reception for people who opt out of paying the licence fee? It may need some technical transitioning, but surely it is relatively simple to do. There would be an issue with radio and internet, but that would be a call for the BBC to make. Sky runs plenty of free to access websites and also partners with radio stations - it had a tie-up with TalkSport for a while if memory serves me right. Other stations, such as ITV and Channel 4, could stay free to view via the same platforms, just as they are now.
All of the above does not seem that tricky to me, which means there is bound to be a huge flaw somewhere; but if on the off-chance I am right, it looks a pretty neat solution to me by easily allowing anyone who does not want to pay the licence fee not to have to, without adversely affecting those who do.
I'm a little bit technical, and could provide a quick answer, followed up by research
(1) opt in-out for people on Sky would be straightforward. (2) Many TVs have what's called a CI slot. You can put a card in there that gives you access to additional channels. The channels are transmitted over the air in an encrypted form. Again, this would be straightforward. (3) BBC channels can be encrypted and used with a CI card. As I understand, most if not all TVs manufactured within the last ten years have a CI card built in. It should be possible to get freeview style boxes with CI cards. (4) Internet TV shouldn't be too difficult.
Of course, this doesn't solve the multi-room problem. At present, if you pay the licence fee, you can watch on as many TVs as you like, providing they're in your house.
The licence fee is an interesting issue. In my own case I don't even have a TV now (I was on analogue TV right up until the signal was switched off and didn't ever consider buying a digital TV) so I only watch TV shows on my laptop via BBCiPlayer and ITV Player (occassionally 4oD too - though that's a very unstable service online).
I'd estimate that I over 95% of what I watch I watch after the original transmission - often several days after. I still feel that the licence fee is worth paying just to avoid seeing adverts when I'm watching BBCiPlayer. It makes for a far more enjoyable viewing experience than that which I get from ITV Player.
However, I can understand why people who don't use BBC services at all might be somewhat irritated by the licence fee.
£145 - perhaps we should be forced to buy the Guardian as well because its good for us.
The BBC TVLF is anachronistic. It's blindingly obvious that the whole media market has moved on in terms of platforms, choice, viewing habits, time-shifting, the web blah blah.
If the BBC is a fabulous as you and they say they are - they've nothing at all to fear. It's as simple as that.
I wonder how many households do not watch or listen to any BBC output. It would be interesting to find out. Clearly all those who believe the BBC is biased have to subject themselves to quite a bit of coverage to make that claim. However, putting that to one side, my point here is more about the politics of changing the current situation. Basically, it would mean a lot of people paying more than they do now and/or it would mean a lot more advertising on all channels - meaning less revenues for all and a consequent reduction in programme quality and choice.
I am afraid the argument about quality and choice from the BBC is one that lost much resonance many years ago.
The BBC is a long way from producing the best programmes these days in almost every genre. Even those programmes they do commission are often made by private companies outside the BBC. If the programmes are good enough to be shown they would appear on other channels if the BBC were not there.
Like a lot of people these days the BBC is a long way down my choice of channels for viewing. There is only one programme I watch 'religiously' (when it is actually on) and certainly when it comes to current affairs and news output I simply don't watch the BBC output as I find it predictable and biased.
Would the world be a worse place without the BBC as it is today? Maybe, maybe not. But is it worth paying £145 a year for? For me certainly not.
The issue would be is the £145 better value than the alternative? For you, maybe not; but until the answer is the same for a lot more voters, the licence fee will remain, because politically getting rid of it would be dynamite - especially after what Schapps said last week.
£145 - perhaps we should be forced to buy the Guardian as well because its good for us.
The BBC TVLF is anachronistic. It's blindingly obvious that the whole media market has moved on in terms of platforms, choice, viewing habits, time-shifting, the web blah blah.
If the BBC is a fabulous as you and they say they are - they've nothing at all to fear. It's as simple as that.
I wonder how many households do not watch or listen to any BBC output. It would be interesting to find out. Clearly all those who believe the BBC is biased have to subject themselves to quite a bit of coverage to make that claim. However, putting that to one side, my point here is more about the politics of changing the current situation. Basically, it would mean a lot of people paying more than they do now and/or it would mean a lot more advertising on all channels - meaning less revenues for all and a consequent reduction in programme quality and choice.
I am afraid the argument about quality and choice from the BBC is one that lost much resonance many years ago.
The BBC is a long way from producing the best programmes these days in almost every genre. Even those programmes they do commission are often made by private companies outside the BBC. If the programmes are good enough to be shown they would appear on other channels if the BBC were not there.
Like a lot of people these days the BBC is a long way down my choice of channels for viewing. There is only one programme I watch 'religiously' (when it is actually on) and certainly when it comes to current affairs and news output I simply don't watch the BBC output as I find it predictable and biased.
Would the world be a worse place without the BBC as it is today? Maybe, maybe not. But is it worth paying £145 a year for? For me certainly not.
The issue would be is the £145 better value than the alternative? For you, maybe not; but until the answer is the same for a lot more voters, the licence fee will remain, because politically getting rid of it would be dynamite - especially after what Schapps said last week.
I'm sorry you do not understand the point I'm making.
The issue would be is the £145 better value than the alternative? For you, maybe not; but until the answer is the same for a lot more voters, the licence fee will remain, because politically getting rid of it would be dynamite - especially after what Schapps said last week.
If the licence fee is such good value for money then at the point at which the technology allows (accepting the comments below that this may not be yet) then let people choose whether to pay or not. If as you claim people think it is great value for money then I would have thought they would be happy to carry on paying and so there would be no problem. If they are not then they will not. I certainly don't want to necessarily see the BBC disappear. I just don''t think it should be a compulsory levy on everyone in the country.
Tim's idiotic comparisons with the rest of public services of course are feeble because there is little or no societal benefit to having a state entertainment broadcaster. Unless of course Tim subscribes to the principle of Bread and Circuses. If you wish to have a public service element for broadcasting then have it centrally funded and open it up to competition from all the broadcasters. The best service for the best price wins the government contract or alternatively it is spread amongst all broadcasters who choose to take part.
The issue would be is the £145 better value than the alternative? For you, maybe not; but until the answer is the same for a lot more voters, the licence fee will remain, because politically getting rid of it would be dynamite - especially after what Schapps said last week.
If the licence fee is such good value for money then at the point at which the technology allows (accepting the comments below that this may not be yet) then let people choose whether to pay or not. If as you claim people think it is great value for money then I would have thought they would be happy to carry on paying and so there would be no problem. If they are not then they will not. I certainly don't want to necessarily see the BBC disappear. I just don''t think it should be a compulsory levy on everyone in the country.
Tim's idiotic comparisons with the rest of public services of course are feeble because there is little or no societal benefit to having a state entertainment broadcaster. Unless of course Tim subscribes to the principle of Bread and Circuses. If you wish to have a public service element for broadcasting then have it centrally funded and open it up to competition from all the broadcasters. The best service for the best price wins the government contract or alternatively it is spread amongst all broadcasters who choose to take part.
I agree. If you want to opt-out of getting BBC services and the licensing fee you should be able to. From reading the below I don't think it presents an insurmountable technical challenge.
1. Visa scheme dropped 2. 70% of public say BBC not biased to left 3. Tories 9pts behind
4.Support for Milibands union reforms
5. Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott 4m Labour's energy prize freeze still plaguing Tories 6 weeks after it was announced. Quite a feat, whatever you think of policy #Murnaghan
To be fair, Carlotta was going to mention No. 4 but ran out of space...
I'm not interested in sport and if I want to see a film I'll have an outing to the cinema or wait until it's a fiver in HMV. Ditto buy or borrow boxed sets. A lot of stuff on the channels is filler garbage.
If you paid monthly for the BBC, plus wanted to watch sport etc... you could be shelling out a grand/1500 a year.
Agree - there's only so much time in the day & with Freesat/View more than enough to keep me entertained.....and then of course there is the cavalcade of wit & beauty on PB.com......
Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for services we don't use.
Nope, another classic Tim misrepresentation. Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for specific state provision of entertainment. I really don't think anyone would class that in the same category as education and health. Unless you thin being able to watch Strictly Come Wobbling is a matter of life and death for the nation.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges1h Why does every policy Labour announces now only have a duration of 12-18 months?
Simpe. Headline grabbing, little lasting substance for the nation.
It's like Gordon's pre-election one-off bribe to the pensioners but gone nuclear. Imagine the spluttering if George plays that same cynical trick in the Autumn statement 2014 incidentally...
Under the proposals put forward by Mr Miliband, private firms would be able to claim back about a third of the cost of raising their staff-members' wages to the living wage - amounting to £445 on average per worker, although it could potentially reach £1,000.
Labour claims the plan will save money because benefit bills would go down and tax revenues would increase.
But costs to businesses would rise as a result of signing up. And those that do so could only claim the money back for one year.
I'm not interested in sport and if I want to see a film I'll have an outing to the cinema or wait until it's a fiver in HMV. Ditto buy or borrow boxed sets. A lot of stuff on the channels is filler garbage.
If you paid monthly for the BBC, plus wanted to watch sport etc... you could be shelling out a grand/1500 a year.
Agree - there's only so much time in the day & with Freesat/View more than enough to keep me entertained.....and then of course there is the cavalcade of wit & beauty on PB.com......
Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for services we don't use.
Nope, another classic Tim misrepresentation. Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for specific state provision of entertainment. I really don't think anyone would class that in the same category as education and health. Unless you thin being able to watch Strictly Come Wobbling is a matter of life and death for the nation.
I can attest that watching Susanna Reid 'wobbling' is a public good, Richard
I wonder if Plato has worked out her position is exactly the same as mine yet!!
What I find so delightful about your posts is your need to be superior by making another post patting yourself on the back, rather than addressing me directly.
It really doesn't make you look clever - just terribly smug. Oh - see what I just did there? Yes, I copied your style only you accuse me of being stupid.
I'm not interested in sport and if I want to see a film I'll have an outing to the cinema or wait until it's a fiver in HMV. Ditto buy or borrow boxed sets. A lot of stuff on the channels is filler garbage.
If you paid monthly for the BBC, plus wanted to watch sport etc... you could be shelling out a grand/1500 a year.
Agree - there's only so much time in the day & with Freesat/View more than enough to keep me entertained.....and then of course there is the cavalcade of wit & beauty on PB.com......
Quite - the only point in signing up for Sky is for the sport. As I say below, I do at certain times of year like now when I get cricket and rugby as well as the football for my money. If you don't like sport, there's no point - I wonder what proportion of Sky subscribers are women?
1. Visa scheme dropped 2. 70% of public say BBC not biased to left 3. Tories 9pts behind
4.Support for Milibands union reforms
5. Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott 4m Labour's energy prize freeze still plaguing Tories 6 weeks after it was announced. Quite a feat, whatever you think of policy #Murnaghan
To be fair, Carlotta was going to mention No. 4 but ran out of space...
I also didn't mention (and nor have any of our friends on the left, funnily enough):
How much influence Unions over Labour (net) Some/a lot: +33
Is this: Too much: 41 Not enough: 10 About Right: 24 Don't know: 25
Happy now?
Bit rich of NPexMP accusing others of selectivity & leaving this out.....
@RichardTyndall - I should add that I believe there should be a way to allow you to opt out of paying the licence fee. It is ridiculous you have to pay it if you do not use its services. I thought that the new digitised platforms would easily allow for that, but it seems I may be wrong.
I can read very well, and the word "scrounger" does not appear on that page. Your prejudice against Littlejohn and the Daily Mail made it appear there in your head, then you claimed that he'd called the woman a benefit scrounger.
1. Visa scheme dropped 2. 70% of public say BBC not biased to left 3. Tories 9pts behind
4.Support for Milibands union reforms
5. Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott 4m Labour's energy prize freeze still plaguing Tories 6 weeks after it was announced. Quite a feat, whatever you think of policy #Murnaghan
Answers:
1. Completely unworkable, rubbish idea but at least they realised it before it was implemented 2. If they asked a cross section of people then half of them would be Labour supporters, so an unfair representation. Most people don't realise they are being brainwashed as they are too busy watching garbage like Eastenders. And anyway, it should be 100% say BBC not biased, 30% thinking they are is a shocking indictment. 4. What reforms? 5. Policy is antiquated and ridiculous, will cost consumers more in the long run and will come back to bite Ed in the arse.
The public are losing its grip on everything, and I don't think that goes down well. As shown by polling as I recall, and backed up by trust surveys.
In a, as far as these things go, reasonably balanced QT audience there was thunderous applause for nationalisation of utilities.....Chris Bryant looked like he'd been given several lemons to suck.....
I'm a little bit technical, and could provide a quick answer, followed up by research
(1) opt in-out for people on Sky would be straightforward. (2) Many TVs have what's called a CI slot. You can put a card in there that gives you access to additional channels. The channels are transmitted over the air in an encrypted form. Again, this would be straightforward. (3) BBC channels can be encrypted and used with a CI card. As I understand, most if not all TVs manufactured within the last ten years have a CI card built in. It should be possible to get freeview style boxes with CI cards. (4) Internet TV shouldn't be too difficult.
Of course, this doesn't solve the multi-room problem. At present, if you pay the licence fee, you can watch on as many TVs as you like, providing they're in your house.
As I say above, BBC channels could be broadcast encrypted. But I'm not sure that all or most TVs have the capability to unencrypt - ours does not, and neither does our four-year old cheapo freeview decoder box. A quick look on the web does not mention Conditional Access (3) on any Freeview boxes for sale. If anything, they appear to be going the Internet connection route for extra content, via iPlayer, youTube and alternatives.
Some TVs that have CAMs/CA use it for services such as TopUp TV, which ceased broadcasting a few days ago. (4)
But as I say, I've been out of that part of the industry for a while. It should be remembered that including a smartcard slot, plus CAM, is expensive for a manufacturer in both hardware and licencing. They would not included it unless there was a market. Which there is not, especially for low-end devices, because of Freeview.
There are also several different CA mechanisms - e.g. NDS's Videoguard (1) as used by Sky, or Nagravision (2). You would have to ensure the boxes have the correct system installed.
The public are losing its grip on everything, and I don't think that goes down well. As shown by polling as I recall, and backed up by trust surveys.
In a, as far as these things go, reasonably balanced QT audience there was thunderous applause for nationalisation of utilities.....Chris Bryant looked like he'd been given several lemons to suck.....
I genuinely think a lot of people are missing the ball on this. It's that overall sense of being taken for a ride by anyone in a position of power or advantage that is feeding the polling and causing a disengagement from politics imo.
Every government, of every colour bangs on incessantly about Choice. Choice on healthcare, Choice on education, Choice on energy, Choice on broadband, Choice on transport, Choice on policing. Choice on this, Choice on that. But, no Choice on paying (or not) for BBC services. There should be an opt out. Conversely, as I can't afford Sky Sports, I'd pay a bit more if the Beeb could offer me live Ashes and Rugby!
Its behind the paywall, but the Sun appears to be going after Ed Davey - Guido tweets "taxpayers pay Ed Davey's office rent to a company of which his wife is a director."......which might be a different order to Labour/Union, Conservative/Association rental deals which have been with us for ages.....
Every government, of every colour bangs on incessantly about Choice. Choice on healthcare, Choice on education, Choice on energy, Choice on broadband, Choice on transport, Choice on policing. Choice on this, Choice on that. But, no Choice on paying (or not) for BBC services. There should be an opt out. Conversely, as I can't afford Sky Sports, I'd pay a bit more if the Beeb could offer me live Ashes and Rugby!
'Choice' is the biggest bullshit line known to man.
Quite - the only point in signing up for Sky is for the sport. As I say below, I do at certain times of year like now when I get cricket and rugby as well as the football for my money. If you don't like sport, there's no point - I wonder what proportion of Sky subscribers are women?
The Tunnel The Wire Boardwalk Empire Mad Dogs The Sopranos
Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for services we don't use.
Nope, another classic Tim misrepresentation. Tyndall claims we shouldn't pay taxes for specific state provision of entertainment. I really don't think anyone would class that in the same category as education and health. Unless you thin being able to watch Strictly Come Wobbling is a matter of life and death for the nation.
Misrepresentation?
"Perhaps we should just randomly pick things out for you to pay tax on even though you never use them. "
Hardly.
and btw I would definitely classify the BBC childrens output as being as socially and educationally useful as childrens libraries which you pay for whether you use them or not.
An apology for your ignorance on Sky charging to Roger would be nice too, as has been pointed out it's perfectly possible to have a Sky bill of £75, remember they charge you to watch in different rooms, unlike the BBC.
How is the BBC's children's output any more socially and educationally useful than ITV's, Channel 4's or Channel 5's?
And if you think TV is in anyway as educationally important as reading then I pity any children you might have.
I think that anyone putting money on Tristram for next leader really ought to be spending it more wisely such as donating it to the poppy appeal or Help for Heroes. Our bookies are not such a deserving cause.
Chuka is a much more serious proposition (although that is not saying much). What they both have in common are that they are the post Blair/Brown generation. I may very well be proved wrong in 2015 but in my view the sooner Labour achieve that the sooner they will become electable again.
We urgently need a serious party of the left who are capable of original thinking about the huge social problems of the day.
What do we do about inequality? It is economically damaging and morally offensive.
How does the State help those in need best in a time of austerity?
How do we intergrate our society better and find an acceptable balance between multi-culturism and common purpose?
What do we do about the victims of our society, the drug addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill?
Tories do not have any monopoly of wisdom on these issues and too often for my taste they don't seem to care enough. I long for a Labour party that has something interesting to say.
Under the proposals put forward by Mr Miliband, private firms would be able to claim back about a third of the cost of raising their staff-members' wages to the living wage - amounting to £445 on average per worker, although it could potentially reach £1,000.
Labour claims the plan will save money because benefit bills would go down and tax revenues would increase.
But costs to businesses would rise as a result of signing up. And those that do so could only claim the money back for one year.
I wonder if Plato has worked out her position is exactly the same as mine yet!!
What I find so delightful about your posts is your need to be superior by making another post patting yourself on the back, rather than addressing me directly.
It really doesn't make you look clever - just terribly smug. Oh - see what I just did there? Yes, I copied your style only you accuse me of being stupid.
Good Rentoul article on 'The Iron Laws of Politics':
"Anyone can play the game of the iron laws of politics. You might start with: "The Tories must lose: no governing party since the war has increased its share of the vote." Then someone says: "What about 1964-66 and 1974?" Those don't count, you conclude, and add to the rule: "... after a full parliamentary term". But then someone else will point out that the Conservatives increased their share of the vote between 1951 and 1955.
At this point the sensible person might conclude that the search for iron laws is a foolish one, and recall the golden words of John Habgood, Archbishop of York, who responded to a line of questioning by Jonathan Dimbleby in a BBC On the Record interview by asking: "Has it ever occurred to you that the lust for certainty is a sin?"
How many PB tories complaining about the BBC would be the first in line to complain if rural subsidies were removed and people had to pay the true cost of providing those, as opposed to the present arrangement which dwarfs the amounts they whine about regarding the BBC.
It is perfectly true that many Conservatives are intellectually incoherent, favouring outrageous patronage for the countryside, while decrying subsidies for the BBC. The point is that both are unjustified. If consumers want to live in the countryside, they should bear the inevitably higher cost of so doing. Similarly, consumers should not be forced to pay for a broadcaster whose services they do not use, nor should that broadcaster have a quasi-monopoly status created by government mandate. It is not an intellectual justification for a subsidy to find another equally unjustifiable subsidy.
How many PB tories complaining about the BBC would be the first in line to complain if rural subsidies were removed and people had to pay the true cost of providing those, as opposed to the present arrangement which dwarfs the amounts they whine about regarding the BBC.
It is perfectly true that many Conservatives are intellectually incoherent, favouring outrageous patronage for the countryside, while decrying subsidies for the BBC. The point is that both are unjustified. If consumers want to live in the countryside, they should bear the inevitably higher cost of so doing. Similarly, consumers should not be forced to pay for a broadcaster whose services they do not use, nor should that broadcaster have a quasi-monopoly status created by government mandate. It is not an intellectual justification for a subsidy to find another equally unjustifiable subsidy.
I didn't bother answering Tim as I am not a Tory but I agree entirely with you Market Town. Government subsidies (taxpayers money) should always be viewed with suspicion no matter where they are directed and only the most essential (and I don't count the BBC entertainment service nor most subsidies to rural areas in that) should be acceptable.
As an aside nor should private schools or religious groups who are not doing clear and beneficial work in the community have charity status.
Its a justification for claiming that the PB Tories are utterly obsessed by the BBC, out of all proportion with other areas of much bigger expenditure, eg rural subsidies though.
Imagine if every thread when the Labour poll badly was taken up by Labour people saying
"I never use that empty road between Nairn and Lochaber, that goes past that half empty school, the underused health centre, massively subsidised farms, subsidised garages, why should I pay for them"
The road of course unless it is a trunk route will be paid for out of local taxes not national ones.
As for health and education services you are the one arguing (and I happen to agree) that they are of vital national importance. The same cannot be said for the BBC entertainment service.
The farms and garages should live or die on their own ability to make money.
Its a justification for claiming that the PB Tories are utterly obsessed by the BBC, out of all proportion with other areas of much bigger expenditure, eg rural subsidies though.
Imagine if every thread when the Labour poll badly was taken up by Labour people saying
"I never use that empty road between Nairn and Lochaber, that goes past that half empty school, the underused health centre, massively subsidised farms, subsidised garages, why should I pay for them"
I tend to agree, although it should be noted that the universal postal service and common agricultural policy, which are two of the principal sources of largesse to the countryside, are consequences of membership of the European Union, which "PB Tories" are generally hostile to.
I think the point about Labour's policy promises only lasting between 12 and 24 months is an important one to reiterate.
On first glance the living wage promise seems quite good; who doesn't want to see wages rise? I like the fact that Miliband has not said this would be a compulsory development, which opens the prospect that we would have a statutory national minimum wage and then some nudging from the state to encourage the introduction of a living wage. I am also intrigued by the notion that it could bring down the benefit bill too as well.
However, the proposition that this would be a 12 month initiative is just one of the weaknesses associated with the policy. What happens after a year? Companies will have to absorb the costs themselves, or risk a backlash by cutting wages, and if they absorb costs then in all likelihood their product costs will have to rise too. Moreover while it could save benefit costs, if the state is to ensure this works it will have to make the tax break more substantial and long term, which would surely just mean they are spending considerable amounts but on different things? Perhaps I have misunderstood things here. We also need to ensure in the first place more people are in jobs, rather than not in jobs.
This policy development demonstrates Labour's continued populism. Emphasise a catchy tagline about a policy and place less emphasis on sustainability. Don't get me wrong, populism is what politicians do, particularly oppositions, but it does not make it any more palatable. The ironic thing of course is that with Labour's energy price policy, the actual desire to look at and restructure the market is more interesting and potentially more useful, but has been brushed under the carpet by the party in the search for the quick headline.
Miliband has rightly pinpointed the cost of living issue, but the coalition government and my own party the Conservatives need to keep emphasising three things. First, that the wider economy is on the mend and that this remains the underpinning for enhanced living standards in the long term. [cont./]
Second, that the Labour party policies are here today; gone tomorrow policies designed for the headlines but, when placed under scrutiny are full of holes and potentially unsustainable. Third, they need to emphasise that actually the government has done a decent amount on cost of living. Why they don't stress more often how they have given a tax cut to millions, slowed the rate of tax on petrol, frozen council tax, frozen the TV licence, I do not know. These are things that have helped millions. The coalition have a good case to bring to the political battlefield, but at the moment they seem to be sat back watching the opposition make manoeuvres, assuming that the wider economic big guns will see them right in the end. They may well do, but repeat the good work done now and over and over again until May 2015.
Quite - the only point in signing up for Sky is for the sport. As I say below, I do at certain times of year like now when I get cricket and rugby as well as the football for my money. If you don't like sport, there's no point - I wonder what proportion of Sky subscribers are women? The Tunnel The Wire Boardwalk Empire Mad Dogs The Sopranos
To name just a few.........
When I want to watch football, I normally go to the pub, I prefer the atmosphere. My wife watches lots of tennis on Sky/Eurosport. Our children (girls) watch TV.
I don't get a chance to watch it (which is why I'm on here)
Its a justification for claiming that the PB Tories are utterly obsessed by the BBC, out of all proportion with other areas of much bigger expenditure, eg rural subsidies though.
Imagine if every thread when the Labour poll badly was taken up by Labour people saying
"I never use that empty road between Nairn and Lochaber, that goes past that half empty school, the underused health centre, massively subsidised farms, subsidised garages, why should I pay for them"
Correct me if I am wrong but I'm not sure that the examples you named have:
1. Been involved in several sexual abuse cases, many of which they allegedly covered up 2. Been accused of bullying and harassment 3. Pay useless and otherwise executives huge amounts to leave, and in some cases re-hire them anyway. 4. Refuse many FOI requests, despite pledging transparency and being a public body 5. Are deemed to be biased politically even by their own management 6. Hire executives without a proper interview process, mostly people with ex-Labour connections, eg James Purnell and his new part time PR man. 7. Shall I go on?
Another ludicrous example from Tim not nice but very dim.
Its a justification for claiming that the PB Tories are utterly obsessed by the BBC, out of all proportion with other areas of much bigger expenditure, eg rural subsidies though.
Imagine if every thread when the Labour poll badly was taken up by Labour people saying
"I never use that empty road between Nairn and Lochaber, that goes past that half empty school, the underused health centre, massively subsidised farms, subsidised garages, why should I pay for them"
I tend to agree, although it should be noted that the universal postal service and common agricultural policy, which are two of the principal sources of largesse to the countryside, are consequences of membership of the European Union, which "PB Tories" are generally hostile to.
The Universal Postal Service was around for probably a century before the EU so I am not sure you can blame them for that.
And even before the CAP we had government subsidy of farming go right back to the First World War. So again much as I detest the EU it is not the case that they are directly to blame for the existence of the subsidy - although of course in both cases remaining in the EU makes it impossible to get rid of those subsidies.
In fairness McCluskey gave a decent account of himself with Neil - tho what happens if his categorical denials 'that's not true' turn out to be the case, time will tell......
If we were starting from scratch then the Beeb and it's poll tax wouldn't be an option but we we're not.
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years. 2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all 3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
"The road of course unless it is a trunk route will be paid for out of local taxes not national ones. "
LOL.
You think that do you, where do you think the bulk of local govt funding comes from? And thats before we get into the r miles of road per taxpayer in rural areas.
So get rid of all central government subsidy to local government and give them the ability to raise all their own taxes. Something I have long argued.
Not sure that the inner cities that you love so much would be too chuffed with that though.
Its a justification for claiming that the PB Tories are utterly obsessed by the BBC, out of all proportion with other areas of much bigger expenditure, eg rural subsidies though.
Imagine if every thread when the Labour poll badly was taken up by Labour people saying
"I never use that empty road between Nairn and Lochaber, that goes past that half empty school, the underused health centre, massively subsidised farms, subsidised garages, why should I pay for them"
I tend to agree, although it should be noted that the universal postal service and common agricultural policy, which are two of the principal sources of largesse to the countryside, are consequences of membership of the European Union, which "PB Tories" are generally hostile to.
The Universal Postal Service was around for probably a century before the EU so I am not sure you can blame them for that.
And even before the CAP we had government subsidy of farming go right back to the First World War. So again much as I detest the EU it is not the case that they are directly to blame for the existence of the subsidy - although of course in both cases remaining in the EU makes it impossible to get rid of those subsidies.
A good reason to leave.
My wife found another one this morning, in fact she was threatening to join UKIP. Given the multitiude of serious problems the EU and the EZ in particular face it is perhaps remarkable that they have managed to find the time to focus on the power of motors in the domestic vacuum cleaner. Apparently from next year the motor is going to be restricted to 1600W and the year after to 900W.
With such initiatives as these is it any surprise that the artic ice cap is increasing in size again?
If we were starting from scratch then the Beeb and it's poll tax wouldn't be an option but we we're not.
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years. 2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all 3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
It is difficult to justify a blanket tax though which is not means tested and which supports one organisation to the detriment of others. There is almost no accountability in the BBC. Of course lefties like the current setup but it is more redolent of Stalinist regimes than open democracy.
5. Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott 4m Labour's energy prize freeze still plaguing Tories 6 weeks after it was announced. Quite a feat, whatever you think of policy #Murnaghan
It's the Tories' basic problem blown up big. They've got three conflicting brands, and they can't figure out which to run on: 1) Heir to Blair. The voters like the price freeze, so we do too! 2) Reluctant austerity. We know it hurts, but it's Labour's fault. 3) Free-market straight-talker. If it sounds good to be true that you can just legislate away price increases, that's because it is. Suck it up.
Any of these would have been a perfectly decent response, but they need to pick one...
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years. 2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all 3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
Seems sensible - the government has other, much bigger fish to fry....
If we were starting from scratch then the Beeb and it's poll tax wouldn't be an option but we we're not.
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years. 2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all 3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
It is difficult to justify a blanket tax though which is not means tested and which supports one organisation to the detriment of others. There is almost no accountability in the BBC. Of course lefties like the current setup but it is more redolent of Stalinist regimes than open democracy.
If we were starting from scratch then the Beeb and it's poll tax wouldn't be an option but we we're not.
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years. 2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all 3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
It is difficult to justify a blanket tax though which is not means tested and which supports one organisation to the detriment of others. There is almost no accountability in the BBC. Of course lefties like the current setup but it is more redolent of Stalinist regimes than open democracy.
Licence by the way: two c's, to be pedantic.
Welcome aboard. Pedantry is always especially welcome.
I must admit I am sympathetic to your views here Jack. I can't say I get particularly wound up about the licence fee. Yes, the BBC frustrates me at time with its news coverage and here other media, the public and even politicians have the right to highlight this to ensure the BBC keep reflecting on and improving objectivity, but broadly speaking as an institution it delivers enough TV and radio programming that I appreciate and its news keeps me informed.
I do think it can do more to become more efficient and I wonder if its expanded a little too far in terms of the number of TV channels and radio stations, but I am not convinced this should mean the end of the licence fee. One area where its reach does need to be looked at is in local media though. I do think there could be scope to at least remove a proportion of the fee to other public service broadcasters, perhaps with a regional focus, allowing an open competition for a percentage of the fee as a whole.
If we were starting from scratch then the Beeb and it's poll tax wouldn't be an option but we we're not.
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years. 2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all 3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
It is difficult to justify a blanket tax though which is not means tested and which supports one organisation to the detriment of others. There is almost no accountability in the BBC. Of course lefties like the current setup but it is more redolent of Stalinist regimes than open democracy.
Licence by the way: two c's, to be pedantic.
Firstly a warm welcome .... with one c.
Our broadcasting platforms and their revenue streams are a curious British operation but I contend they work.
The Beeb requires reform but for all its' faults remains a hugely respected media outlet with approval numbers that similar organizations would die for.
If we were starting from scratch then the Beeb and it's poll tax wouldn't be an option but we we're not.
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years. 2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all 3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
Sensible post. The BBC brand should be marketed far mor video robustly abroad now the Internet gives it massive reach.
That's the way to go to increase revenues, not wrecking the thing in a spasm of PB Tory style ideological vandalism
Agree with the BBC Worldwide increased scope.
But you are yet another person who does not seem to realise that the current licence fee model will become increasingly unworkable due to changes in technology.
If we were to move to a subscriber and encryption basis (as I think SO favours below), then:
1) There is a massive cost for people to get the hardware to decrypt. The BBC already spent £300 million helping people convert, e.g. giving free tuners to the elderly (1). Doing this again a few years later will not be popular. 2) There is a large risk of piracy. 3) There are licencing fees for the relevant CA technology (unless the BBC comes up with its own, which may still be subject to patents). 4) People will be faced with a choice about whether to get the BBC, or a.n.other provider. They may choose just to get a.n.other (e.g. Sky). At the moment they have to get the BBC, and Sky is an addition. 5) The BBC becomes just another provider, albeit the biggest. It loses a USP. 6) People may not be faffed with terrestrial broadcast TV, and rely on t'Internet.
Hence, under a subscribership scheme the number of BBC viewers would reduce by a significant amount.
I don't know the way forward. All I know is that the current model will not be able to continue much longer. It has served us well, but is reaching its end.
"How sickening has it been to watch Labour MPs trying to defend Unite’s totally indefensible “leverage” tactics at Grangemouth?
Tactics which involved baying mobs of protesters descending on the homes of oil refinery executives with the effect of intimidating their wives and children.
Wives and children who live in constant fear of it happening again.
But the mob didn’t stop at just intimidating them. It went to surrounding houses telling neighbours how evil they were.
No, what’s evil is a union boss who sanctions this kind of bullying.
So why hasn’t Miliband properly condemned these bully-boy squads?
Ah yes – he needs their money."
Mail on Sunday Sunday Times Sun on Sunday Sunday Express Sunday Telegraph
I must admit I am sympathetic to your views here Jack. I can't say I get particularly wound up about the licence fee. Yes, the BBC frustrates me at time with its news coverage and here other media, the public and even politicians have the right to highlight this to ensure the BBC keep reflecting on and improving objectivity, but broadly speaking as an institution it delivers enough TV and radio programming that I appreciate and its news keeps me informed.
I do think it can do more to become more efficient and I wonder if its expanded a little too far in terms of the number of TV channels and radio stations, but I am not convinced this should mean the end of the licence fee. One area where its reach does need to be looked at is in local media though. I do think there could be scope to at least remove a proportion of the fee to other public service broadcasters, perhaps with a regional focus, allowing an open competition for a percentage of the fee as a whole.
I must admit I am sympathetic to your views here Jack. I can't say I get particularly wound up about the licence fee. Yes, the BBC frustrates me at time with its news coverage and here other media, the public and even politicians have the right to highlight this to ensure the BBC keep reflecting on and improving objectivity, but broadly speaking as an institution it delivers enough TV and radio programming that I appreciate and its news keeps me informed.
I do think it can do more to become more efficient and I wonder if its expanded a little too far in terms of the number of TV channels and radio stations, but I am not convinced this should mean the end of the licence fee. One area where its reach does need to be looked at is in local media though. I do think there could be scope to at least remove a proportion of the fee to other public service broadcasters, perhaps with a regional focus, allowing an open competition for a percentage of the fee as a whole.
I was taken with TimB's description of how PBS was funded in the US. I think that might well be a way forward. We could freeze the licence fee permanently but allow the BBC to raise funds by other voluntary means. I still think it is unacceptable that they have the sanction of the criminal law to enforce payment though.
The other side of this argument is that like Europe the more the Tories bang on about the BBC the more unhinged they are likely to appear. Warms up a few of their activists and the Tea Partiers on here, but looks a really weird set of priorities to normal people
It is not a priority. Another misrepresentation by you there Tim. Are you going for a record today?
It is a side issue which is suitable for debate on a site that is supposed to be about debating such issues.
Comments
If you paid monthly for the BBC, plus wanted to watch sport etc... you could be shelling out a grand/1500 a year.
Not so much the grit in the oyster but a sh....
Do you not realise what a figure of fun and scorn you are on here Roger. No one takes you seriously because of your utter hypocrisy.
And after you said yesterday that Littlejohn had called ppb woman a benefit scrounger, when he hadn't?
Hmm...
Shameful from Tim, truly shameful.
So for example, the 0.8% growth we just had does not equal 0.8% contribution towards the annual rate, because it only applies to the 2nd half of this year. The same quarter in 2012 ends up having more effect on the 2013 annual growth rate.
Conversely, the strong growth in the 2nd half of this year mean next year will be a very strong year on the annual figure, even if the quarterly figures slacken off.
(1) opt in-out for people on Sky would be straightforward.
(2) Many TVs have what's called a CI slot. You can put a card in there that gives you access to additional channels. The channels are transmitted over the air in an encrypted form. Again, this would be straightforward.
(3) BBC channels can be encrypted and used with a CI card. As I understand, most if not all TVs manufactured within the last ten years have a CI card built in. It should be possible to get freeview style boxes with CI cards.
(4) Internet TV shouldn't be too difficult.
Of course, this doesn't solve the multi-room problem. At present, if you pay the licence fee, you can watch on as many TVs as you like, providing they're in your house.
I'll take the middle one!!! Still hoping we actually play to our potential like the first 1/2 against Chelsea, that would be nice...
For this reason, subscriber and pay-per-view services such as Sky are generally encrypted. To decode them, you need a box capable of doing so. This is mainly done via a subscriber smartcard and CAM (1), and increasingly via upstream Internet connection as well. By their very nature, most free-to air boxes do not have any need for smartcards.
If the BBC were to move to a subscriber system, then all the free-to-air boxes (including those built-in to TVs) would need replacing. This would not be popular after people have been forced to buy digital boxes over the last few years, and also very, very expensive.
This is a simplification and there are variations, but that is generally the situation in the UK from memory (I have not been directly in that segment of the industry for a few years).
Additionally, if the BBC were to move to a subscriber system, they have just lost a massive USP.
Having said all that, a friend of mine contended a few months ago that *all* terrestrial broadcasting will be put onto the Internet in the next couple of decades, freeing up lots of transmission frequencies for the government to sell. There are some (ahem) technical difficulties in this, but if it happens it would make the BBC situation both easier and more complex.
Some useful background info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_decryption
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_access_module
1. Visa scheme dropped
2. 70% of public say BBC not biased to left
3. Tories 9pts behind
And since everyone is now digital...its not beyond the techies to devise a way to do what every other country does with the same challenge or even to lead the way!
I'd estimate that I over 95% of what I watch I watch after the original transmission - often several days after. I still feel that the licence fee is worth paying just to avoid seeing adverts when I'm watching BBCiPlayer. It makes for a far more enjoyable viewing experience than that which I get from ITV Player.
However, I can understand why people who don't use BBC services at all might be somewhat irritated by the licence fee.
@Tyndall
"Do you not realise what a figure of fun and scorn you are on here Roger. No one takes you seriously because of your utter hypocrisy.'
Enough.
I come on here because I enjoy it.
Whether I'm a figure of fun isn't in my control.
But telling the truth to the best of my knowledge is.
The BBC TVLF is anachronistic. It's blindingly obvious that the whole media market has moved on in terms of platforms, choice, viewing habits, time-shifting, the web blah blah.
If the BBC is a fabulous as you and they say they are - they've nothing at all to fear. It's as simple as that.
Tim's idiotic comparisons with the rest of public services of course are feeble because there is little or no societal benefit to having a state entertainment broadcaster. Unless of course Tim subscribes to the principle of Bread and Circuses. If you wish to have a public service element for broadcasting then have it centrally funded and open it up to competition from all the broadcasters. The best service for the best price wins the government contract or alternatively it is spread amongst all broadcasters who choose to take part.
If the licence fee is such good value for money then at the point at which the technology allows (accepting the comments below that this may not be yet) then let people choose whether to pay or not. If as you claim people think it is great value for money then I would have thought they would be happy to carry on paying and so there would be no problem. If they are not then they will not. I certainly don't want to necessarily see the BBC disappear. I just don''t think it should be a compulsory levy on everyone in the country.
Tim's idiotic comparisons with the rest of public services of course are feeble because there is little or no societal benefit to having a state entertainment broadcaster. Unless of course Tim subscribes to the principle of Bread and Circuses. If you wish to have a public service element for broadcasting then have it centrally funded and open it up to competition from all the broadcasters. The best service for the best price wins the government contract or alternatively it is spread amongst all broadcasters who choose to take part.
I agree. If you want to opt-out of getting BBC services and the licensing fee you should be able to. From reading the below I don't think it presents an insurmountable technical challenge.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cdntzyn7rn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-011113.pdf
DFE investigates Barnfield Fed:
http://news.tes.co.uk/news_blog/b/weblog/archive/2013/11/01/dfe-investigates-barnfield-federation-over-finances.aspx
Why does every policy Labour announces now only have a duration of 12-18 months?
Simpe. Headline grabbing, little lasting substance for the nation.
It's like Gordon's pre-election one-off bribe to the pensioners but gone nuclear. Imagine the spluttering if George plays that same cynical trick in the Autumn statement 2014 incidentally...
1. Interwebs
2. Ad hom
3. Look squirrel
I'll post more teeth-grindingly awful phrases as and when.
.
I am pretty hacked off at having to subsidise Eton and Harrow.
You would be paying a lot more if the pupils went to state school, same with private hospitals.
I'm distraught at having to subsidise the sinister Common Purpose
It really doesn't make you look clever - just terribly smug. Oh - see what I just did there? Yes, I copied your style only you accuse me of being stupid.
It adds nothing to the debate.
"And after you said yesterday that Littlejohn had called ppb woman a benefit scrounger, when he hadn't?"
Can you read?
"That meant giving up a £27,000-a-year salary in order to live on benefits. Jack says she simply couldn’t make ends meet on her fire brigade income."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2482111/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Ah-Pesto-Meet-poverty-poster-girls.html
How much influence Unions over Labour (net)
Some/a lot: +33
Is this:
Too much: 41
Not enough: 10
About Right: 24
Don't know: 25
Happy now?
Bit rich of NPexMP accusing others of selectivity & leaving this out.....
Just had Royal Mail, probation ongoing, read the other day re army recruitment failure.... plus stuff on care homes etc.
The public are losing its grip on everything, and I don't think that goes down well. As shown by polling as I recall, and backed up by trust surveys.
1. Completely unworkable, rubbish idea but at least they realised it before it was implemented
2. If they asked a cross section of people then half of them would be Labour supporters, so an unfair representation. Most people don't realise they are being brainwashed as they are too busy watching garbage like Eastenders. And anyway, it should be 100% say BBC not biased, 30% thinking they are is a shocking indictment.
4. What reforms?
5. Policy is antiquated and ridiculous, will cost consumers more in the long run and will come back to bite Ed in the arse.
Not sure if Hamilton will or won't get a penalty. Very much hope he will.
Some TVs that have CAMs/CA use it for services such as TopUp TV, which ceased broadcasting a few days ago. (4)
But as I say, I've been out of that part of the industry for a while. It should be remembered that including a smartcard slot, plus CAM, is expensive for a manufacturer in both hardware and licencing. They would not included it unless there was a market. Which there is not, especially for low-end devices, because of Freeview.
There are also several different CA mechanisms - e.g. NDS's Videoguard (1) as used by Sky, or Nagravision (2). You would have to ensure the boxes have the correct system installed.
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoGuard
(2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagravision
(3): http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-blu-ray/digital-tv-services/freeview/304_3021_30021_xx_xx/xx-criteria.html
(4): http://www.a516digital.com/2013/09/q-top-up-tv-is-closing.html
But, no Choice on paying (or not) for BBC services.
There should be an opt out.
Conversely, as I can't afford Sky Sports, I'd pay a bit more if the Beeb could offer me live Ashes and Rugby!
Quite - the only point in signing up for Sky is for the sport. As I say below, I do at certain times of year like now when I get cricket and rugby as well as the football for my money. If you don't like sport, there's no point - I wonder what proportion of Sky subscribers are women?
The Tunnel
The Wire
Boardwalk Empire
Mad Dogs
The Sopranos
To name just a few.........
And if you think TV is in anyway as educationally important as reading then I pity any children you might have.
Your misrepresentations continue to find you out.
Chuka is a much more serious proposition (although that is not saying much). What they both have in common are that they are the post Blair/Brown generation. I may very well be proved wrong in 2015 but in my view the sooner Labour achieve that the sooner they will become electable again.
We urgently need a serious party of the left who are capable of original thinking about the huge social problems of the day.
What do we do about inequality? It is economically damaging and morally offensive.
How does the State help those in need best in a time of austerity?
How do we intergrate our society better and find an acceptable balance between multi-culturism and common purpose?
What do we do about the victims of our society, the drug addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill?
Tories do not have any monopoly of wisdom on these issues and too often for my taste they don't seem to care enough. I long for a Labour party that has something interesting to say.
Why should John Lewis (making assumptions) be forced to subsidise Poundland? (another assumption).
I did address you directly. You did not respond.
"Anyone can play the game of the iron laws of politics. You might start with: "The Tories must lose: no governing party since the war has increased its share of the vote." Then someone says: "What about 1964-66 and 1974?" Those don't count, you conclude, and add to the rule: "... after a full parliamentary term". But then someone else will point out that the Conservatives increased their share of the vote between 1951 and 1955.
At this point the sensible person might conclude that the search for iron laws is a foolish one, and recall the golden words of John Habgood, Archbishop of York, who responded to a line of questioning by Jonathan Dimbleby in a BBC On the Record interview by asking: "Has it ever occurred to you that the lust for certainty is a sin?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-iron-laws-of-politics-there-arent-any-8919102.html
McCluskey on the SP at 11.00 - should be fun!
As an aside nor should private schools or religious groups who are not doing clear and beneficial work in the community have charity status.
As for health and education services you are the one arguing (and I happen to agree) that they are of vital national importance. The same cannot be said for the BBC entertainment service.
The farms and garages should live or die on their own ability to make money.
Clear?
I think the point about Labour's policy promises only lasting between 12 and 24 months is an important one to reiterate.
On first glance the living wage promise seems quite good; who doesn't want to see wages rise? I like the fact that Miliband has not said this would be a compulsory development, which opens the prospect that we would have a statutory national minimum wage and then some nudging from the state to encourage the introduction of a living wage. I am also intrigued by the notion that it could bring down the benefit bill too as well.
However, the proposition that this would be a 12 month initiative is just one of the weaknesses associated with the policy. What happens after a year? Companies will have to absorb the costs themselves, or risk a backlash by cutting wages, and if they absorb costs then in all likelihood their product costs will have to rise too. Moreover while it could save benefit costs, if the state is to ensure this works it will have to make the tax break more substantial and long term, which would surely just mean they are spending considerable amounts but on different things? Perhaps I have misunderstood things here. We also need to ensure in the first place more people are in jobs, rather than not in jobs.
This policy development demonstrates Labour's continued populism. Emphasise a catchy tagline about a policy and place less emphasis on sustainability. Don't get me wrong, populism is what politicians do, particularly oppositions, but it does not make it any more palatable. The ironic thing of course is that with Labour's energy price policy, the actual desire to look at and restructure the market is more interesting and potentially more useful, but has been brushed under the carpet by the party in the search for the quick headline.
Miliband has rightly pinpointed the cost of living issue, but the coalition government and my own party the Conservatives need to keep emphasising three things. First, that the wider economy is on the mend and that this remains the underpinning for enhanced living standards in the long term. [cont./]
Second, that the Labour party policies are here today; gone tomorrow policies designed for the headlines but, when placed under scrutiny are full of holes and potentially unsustainable. Third, they need to emphasise that actually the government has done a decent amount on cost of living. Why they don't stress more often how they have given a tax cut to millions, slowed the rate of tax on petrol, frozen council tax, frozen the TV licence, I do not know. These are things that have helped millions. The coalition have a good case to bring to the political battlefield, but at the moment they seem to be sat back watching the opposition make manoeuvres, assuming that the wider economic big guns will see them right in the end. They may well do, but repeat the good work done now and over and over again until May 2015.
My wife watches lots of tennis on Sky/Eurosport.
Our children (girls) watch TV.
I don't get a chance to watch it (which is why I'm on here)
1. Been involved in several sexual abuse cases, many of which they allegedly covered up
2. Been accused of bullying and harassment
3. Pay useless and otherwise executives huge amounts to leave, and in some cases re-hire them anyway.
4. Refuse many FOI requests, despite pledging transparency and being a public body
5. Are deemed to be biased politically even by their own management
6. Hire executives without a proper interview process, mostly people with ex-Labour connections, eg James Purnell and his new part time PR man.
7. Shall I go on?
Another ludicrous example from Tim not nice but very dim.
And even before the CAP we had government subsidy of farming go right back to the First World War. So again much as I detest the EU it is not the case that they are directly to blame for the existence of the subsidy - although of course in both cases remaining in the EU makes it impossible to get rid of those subsidies.
A good reason to leave.
It might not be a popular view on PB but I think we have the best of all situations and broadly should remain as is.
1. BBC for all. It's flabby - I'd freeze the license fee for 5 years.
2. ITV, C4 and C5 and others - Adverts free to air for all
3 Sky and Cable TV - Ensure competition is vigorous.
Not sure that the inner cities that you love so much would be too chuffed with that though.
With such initiatives as these is it any surprise that the artic ice cap is increasing in size again?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10423070/Press-row-PM-faces-questions-over-link-to-charity.html
Tin foil hat time - Common Purpose, and Cameron...just add BBC into the mix.
Licence by the way: two c's, to be pedantic.
1) Heir to Blair. The voters like the price freeze, so we do too!
2) Reluctant austerity. We know it hurts, but it's Labour's fault.
3) Free-market straight-talker. If it sounds good to be true that you can just legislate away price increases, that's because it is. Suck it up.
Any of these would have been a perfectly decent response, but they need to pick one...
NURSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Welcome aboard. Pedantry is always especially welcome.
I must admit I am sympathetic to your views here Jack. I can't say I get particularly wound up about the licence fee. Yes, the BBC frustrates me at time with its news coverage and here other media, the public and even politicians have the right to highlight this to ensure the BBC keep reflecting on and improving objectivity, but broadly speaking as an institution it delivers enough TV and radio programming that I appreciate and its news keeps me informed.
I do think it can do more to become more efficient and I wonder if its expanded a little too far in terms of the number of TV channels and radio stations, but I am not convinced this should mean the end of the licence fee. One area where its reach does need to be looked at is in local media though. I do think there could be scope to at least remove a proportion of the fee to other public service broadcasters, perhaps with a regional focus, allowing an open competition for a percentage of the fee as a whole.
Our broadcasting platforms and their revenue streams are a curious British operation but I contend they work.
The Beeb requires reform but for all its' faults remains a hugely respected media outlet with approval numbers that similar organizations would die for.
So two cheers for dear old Aunty warts and all.
But you are yet another person who does not seem to realise that the current licence fee model will become increasingly unworkable due to changes in technology.
If we were to move to a subscriber and encryption basis (as I think SO favours below), then:
1) There is a massive cost for people to get the hardware to decrypt. The BBC already spent £300 million helping people convert, e.g. giving free tuners to the elderly (1). Doing this again a few years later will not be popular.
2) There is a large risk of piracy.
3) There are licencing fees for the relevant CA technology (unless the BBC comes up with its own, which may still be subject to patents).
4) People will be faced with a choice about whether to get the BBC, or a.n.other provider. They may choose just to get a.n.other (e.g. Sky). At the moment they have to get the BBC, and Sky is an addition.
5) The BBC becomes just another provider, albeit the biggest. It loses a USP.
6) People may not be faffed with terrestrial broadcast TV, and rely on t'Internet.
Hence, under a subscribership scheme the number of BBC viewers would reduce by a significant amount.
I don't know the way forward. All I know is that the current model will not be able to continue much longer. It has served us well, but is reaching its end.
(1): http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/19/bbc-digital-switchover-funds
Congrats on a thousand posts, Miss Carola.
The Beeb requires modest surgery not euthanasia.
It is a side issue which is suitable for debate on a site that is supposed to be about debating such issues.