The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.
Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election
Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
I am to be honest.
I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
He's got 4 years to find more credible lines. What's the rush? A lot is going to happen in that time for good or ill. Right now he wants to win convincingly and he will.
Let's just hope he doesn't put these pledges on an Ed Stone!
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
You're seriously unclear on why the BBC might struggle to compete with Disney?
Even without advertising, they could comfortably afford to subsidise the kids channel entirely, in the hope of picking up early brand loyalty and as a goodwill gesture to customers.
As far as I know Disney isn't on Freeview, but Tiny Pop and others are.
Yes I'm seriously unclear as to why the BBC might struggle to compete with Tiny Pop etc.
Furthermore if it can't I'm seriously unclear as to why we should care.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
Mr. Gate, this Yorkshireman thinks devolution on a regional basis is a stupid, feeble idea.
Would Yorkshire have powers equal to Holyrood? Will we be setting our health and education policies? Will we have a Barnett[sp] Formula? Will we be able to set tax rates?
If the answer is yes, then devolution equates to carving England up into pieces and denying it the political identity that Scotland enjoys currently.
If the answer is no, then devolution equates to a second class, inferior Balkanisation of England for the sake of some glorified councils.
I'm not voting for any party that advocates cutting England into bits. If Scotland's good enough for a Parliament then so are we.
Remember Keir is talking to the Labour party right now, not the electorate.
Starmer has enough behind him now that he can tell a few home truths to the labour party.
He isn't.
Precisely. How he acts now sets his mandate and tone for his leadership. The idea he's going to pivot away completely from his campaign is absurd - and if he does why on earth should we trust him in a general election if he's that accomplished a liar?
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.
It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.
Yawn
It's a long way from original but without Corbyn's baggage it is likely to poll better than he did.
You have to get rid of the hard left if you want Labour to challenge...
The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.
Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election
Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
I am to be honest.
I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
He's got 4 years to find more credible lines. What's the rush? A lot is going to happen in that time for good or ill. Right now he wants to win convincingly and he will.
Let's just hope he doesn't put these pledges on an Ed Stone!
Remember Keir is talking to the Labour party right now, not the electorate.
Good point. Although Boris won by pandering to the racists and xenophobes it doesn't follow that Keir can only win by doing likewise. Britain is not primarily a racist and xenophobic country. Yes, for lazy politicians such as Boris that's an easy and helpful block to win over, but a politician of principle and skill should be able to shun it and still be successful.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Good for you. I would happily subscribe to Netflix but not the BBC. Free market, free choice - or that's the way it should be.
I don't see why my children should watch adverts then I should be taxed to fund your children's choices? There's no justification for a compulsory tax in 2020 for a small handful of largely crap TV channels many of which don't even run 24/7.
Trying to settle an upset teething or jetlagged infant who's woken in the night, good look finding something for them on CBeebies. Commercial kids TV manages to be available 24/7 though without any taxes.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Whereas I'm the opposite. I watch very very little on the BBC, but get plenty out of both Netflix and Amazon. Horses for Courses.
I would happily pay a reduced licence fee for Radio, News and Sport coverage probably however.
It is a shifting game though. I cannot see Biden on 16.9 by Super Tuesday, and quite possible that neither him nor Warren will still be in the running by then. Their slumps seem terminal. Where their supporters shift to will be key, but I think Bernie has peaked too.
I think Buttigieg will hit a wall in SC. It is awful to say but the fact he's gay is going to have a major impact given the demographics (especially as the African American community there is major church going) even if that is not the stated reason. The question for him is whether that result is seen as an one-off or the start of a major stumble.
It is a bit harder to tell whether Klobuchar will do well in SC. She hasn't got Peter's "baggage" but I don't think Minnesota Nice is that big a selling point down in SC.
I actually do think Biden may have a very good night because the African-American community tends to be quite loyal when it comes to voting. He might be worth a trading bet into SC.
Finally, I don't think Sanders has peaked. If Warren does exit, I can see a lot of her base heading to him. Moreover, the hard left can see control of the Democrats is within their grasp. They will not let that go.
I don't understand why the BBC's defenders are so horrified by the notion the BBC could become a voluntary rather than compulsory subscription. If the BBC is any good then surely people will voluntarily subscribe to it and then that's the end of the matter?
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
In reality, if the BBC were to offer say kids subscription channels e.g. CBeebies, what would be the best approach would be what already happens on Sky / Virgin at the moment, where companies allow their channels to be offered up in package deals i.e. the customer pays for Sky Kids and you get all the Disney, Nick Jr, CBeebies.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Crazy talk. Some of the best modern day drama is on Netflix.
Yesterday a top Hong Kong medical official predicted the coronavirus could infect more than 60 per cent of the global population if containment methods fail.
Remember Keir is talking to the Labour party right now, not the electorate.
As a member, how would you feel if he pivoted to a different approach on being elected? That you’d been taken for a fool? That you always knew he was a liar but, hey he’s our liar?
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Crazy talk. Some of the best modern day drama is on Netflix.
Which costs less than the BBC does.
The BBCs defenders are not worried because the BBC is great, they're worried because they know deep down its just not that special. If it was special, people would voluntarily pay for it - but they know if it was optional people would stop doing so. And why shouldn't they? Why should I pay the BBC a tax just so my daughter can watch Disney Jr? Why should I pay the BBC a tax if I want to watch Sky News?
Yesterday a top Hong Kong medical official predicted the coronavirus could infect more than 60 per cent of the global population if containment methods fail.
Is Bernie Sanders actually THAT hard left ? His platform looks to be to the right of the Lib Dems here, on taxation at least.
He wants to spend $100 trillion over 10 years. It doubles the size of the budget deficit. For example, I don't remember for instance Lib Dems promising to double the starting salary of teachers or wanting to double minimum wage, increase union powers, etc etc etc.
If he enacts all his plans, it is radical shift in the US.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Whereas I'm the opposite. I watch very very little on the BBC, but get plenty out of both Netflix and Amazon. Horses for Courses.
I would happily pay a reduced licence fee for Radio, News and Sport coverage probably however.
And you could extend the principle....
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Yesterday a top Hong Kong medical official predicted the coronavirus could infect more than 60 per cent of the global population if containment methods fail.
Yesterday a top Hong Kong medical official predicted the coronavirus could infect more than 60 per cent of the global population if containment methods fail.
Yesterday a top Hong Kong medical official predicted the coronavirus could infect more than 60 per cent of the global population if containment methods fail.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Whereas I'm the opposite. I watch very very little on the BBC, but get plenty out of both Netflix and Amazon. Horses for Courses.
I would happily pay a reduced licence fee for Radio, News and Sport coverage probably however.
And you could extend the principle....
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
The BBC is not. Its a luxury that you can choose if you want it or not. If you want a bottle of wine you don't get a wine tax that then the government gives you a preselected wine of its choice whether you want it or not.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Crazy talk. Some of the best modern day drama is on Netflix.
Not much that I like. I only subscribe for Fox Jr.
I watch more on the BFI player, which is fantastic value. I listen to BBC radio a lot too.
Yesterday a top Hong Kong medical official predicted the coronavirus could infect more than 60 per cent of the global population if containment methods fail.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
Is Bernie Sanders actually THAT hard left ? His platform looks to be to the right of the Lib Dems here, on taxation at least.
He wants to spend $100 trillion over 10 years. It doubles the size of the budget deficit. I don't remember for instance Lib Dems promising to double the starting salary of teachers.
How does tax look for a $50,000 earner in the US now and under Bernie tho ? (Compared to UK)
I'd sell that as winning back the right of Brits to live and work in Europe. I can see that being quite appealing after a few years where it's likely to have been more difficult.
Very few people wanted to when it was as easy as living and working in the same country, and several million voted to end it.
To be fair, this is what I wanted to happen if we left the EU; one party saying they would stop free movement and the other saying they’d keep it. Fair enough, we’ll see how important it is to people. I’d guess it will dominate the next election if Starmer wins and has this policy
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Dont put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue.. no.license bbc becomes as crap as all the test of the channels...
Channels, I remember them. Didn't they use to tell you when you could watch what you wanted to watch or something? Hard to imagine really.
Is Bernie Sanders actually THAT hard left ? His platform looks to be to the right of the Lib Dems here, on taxation at least.
He wants to spend $100 trillion over 10 years. It doubles the size of the budget deficit. I don't remember for instance Lib Dems promising to double the starting salary of teachers.
How does tax look for a $50,000 earner in the US now and under Bernie tho ?
He can't actually fund for all his commitments. The projection is for US debt to GDP will double to over 150%.
Outside of the healthcare for all (which obviously is agreed by all parties in the UK), there is all sorts of stuff like much stronger unions / jobs links to those etc. It certainly isn't Orange book lib demery.
Before I looked more closely, I just heard the headline stuff and thought it wasn't that radical by our standards, but actually it is.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
There is a very good reason why it can't continue, it is actually totally unenforceable. That is actually my biggest issue with the current system.
The idea that people only sit and watch it through the big moving picture box in their living room is totally out dated and there is no way without a really big brother approach they can ever work out if you have paid or not.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.
If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
Kids TV without advertising is much more parent friendly. Certainly something that I wanted when Fox jr was little.
So you'd be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription for it I guess then?
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
I would happily subscribe to the BBC, nearly all of the programmes that I enjoy are on it.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
Crazy talk. Some of the best modern day drama is on Netflix.
I've been catching up with the Loudest Voice. Excellent stuff. Russell Crowe is brilliantly repulsive as Ailes. I think its actually on Sky Atlantic but it was a Netflix production.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
The irony is that if 25 years ago their management had not benefitted from the comfort blanket of the licence fee, they would have had to go out and compete in the big wide world. And then, with their brand name recognition and standards, they would have pissed on CNN and strangled SKY at birth.
They would now be the pre-eminent global power in their field.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
There is a very good reason why it can't continue, it is actually totally unenforceable.
Yes, I think that is increasingly the issue. Narrowcasting, not broadcasting is the future, with us all in our little bubbles.
Ironically, a lot of the cultural destruction of community links will be by the people who voted nostalgically.
As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines of climate change.”
I'd sell that as winning back the right of Brits to live and work in Europe. I can see that being quite appealing after a few years where it's likely to have been more difficult.
Will any other country offer Brits the same voting rights? I doubt it.
I'm not convinces the right to live and work in Europe is as popular as its advocates think it is. Language is still an almost insurmountable barrier for most. Favoyred emigration destinations have always been English speaking countries, despite the lack of automatic right to liv and and work there.
Well it should never easy enough to find out. What is the ratio of EU immigrants to the UK over UK immigrants in the EU?
In 2019 there were785k Brits in the EU, 70% of whom were in Spain, the vast majority presumably not competing for Spanish jobs
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
Is that really true these days?
For entertainment, I would say the driver for a number of years has been HBO and more recently Netflix. They totally changed the game in what is expected in terms of production quality of a tv show.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
Like most younger people I barely watch TV anymore, but when I do it's rarely something on the BBC. I don't recognise this 'high quality' claim, most of it is trash.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
Looking online it seems that right now on the BBC's flagship channel BBC1 Homes Under the Hammer has just finished. Apparently now is a show called Wanted Down Under, then Defenders UK and Bargain Hunt.
Can you tell me what is such "high quality" about those that we need a compulsory tax to pay for them.
Real high quality shows that are made high quality compete not with the BBC but with a global audience as they're exported. Shows like Downton Abbey, Game of Thrones and The Crown have a worldwide audience not a British one.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
Looking online it seems that right now on the BBC's flagship channel BBC1 Homes Under the Hammer has just finished. Apparently now is a show called Wanted Down Under, then Defenders UK and Bargain Hunt.
Can you tell me what is such "high quality" about those that we need a compulsory tax to pay for them.
Real high quality shows that are made high quality compete not with the BBC but with a global audience as they're exported. Shows like Downton Abbey, Game of Thrones and The Crown have a worldwide audience not a British one.
Try looking at BBC4 programmes, BBC2 programmes rather than daytime BBC1.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
And the fire brigade has been scaled back as house fires etc. have decreased.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines of climate change.”
I am struggling to see how "queer" is a defining characteristic for the frontline of climate change....
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
Looking online it seems that right now on the BBC's flagship channel BBC1 Homes Under the Hammer has just finished. Apparently now is a show called Wanted Down Under, then Defenders UK and Bargain Hunt.
Can you tell me what is such "high quality" about those that we need a compulsory tax to pay for them.
Real high quality shows that are made high quality compete not with the BBC but with a global audience as they're exported. Shows like Downton Abbey, Game of Thrones and The Crown have a worldwide audience not a British one.
Try looking at BBC4 programmes, BBC2 programmes rather than daytime BBC1.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
Looking online it seems that right now on the BBC's flagship channel BBC1 Homes Under the Hammer has just finished. Apparently now is a show called Wanted Down Under, then Defenders UK and Bargain Hunt.
Can you tell me what is such "high quality" about those that we need a compulsory tax to pay for them.
Real high quality shows that are made high quality compete not with the BBC but with a global audience as they're exported. Shows like Downton Abbey, Game of Thrones and The Crown have a worldwide audience not a British one.
Try looking at BBC4 programmes, BBC2 programmes rather than daytime BBC1.
Right now BBC4 is showing . . . "Channel Off Air".
We need to pay a compulsory tax to pay for "Channel Off Air" do we? If you think BBC4 is great you can pay for it, what's the harm in that?
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
The point (that you are so careful not to engage with) is that if we start allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent, then the whole system falls apart.
Looks like a piece of red meat thrown out to appease the Labour membership.
Red meat?
It’s an all you eat carnivore feast.
Either Starmer’s sincere (in which case he’s just a more competent Corbyn without the foreign policy and anti-semitism baggage) or he’s throwing up chaff to deflect the hard Left to get the leadership, and will tack to the centre later.
I have no idea which yet. All I do know is that that isn’t an election winning platform.
It may get some Lab defectors to return.
Starmer appears to believe that there is a huge demand for more regional devolution in English regions. Wasn't aware that it was such a big doorstep issue in Dec 2019.
Sounds to me like he’s looking for more opportunities to cockblock Tory rule in England in the longer term.
As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines of climate change.”
I am struggling to see how "queer" is a defining characteristic for the frontline of climate change....
Well, if you recognise that by far the biggest issue for AGW is our population growth (and not single use plastics)....
As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines of climate change.”
We’re not far off the point where everyone becomes sick and tired of this pile of wank.
There is another problem that the BBC have (and it isn't totally unique to them). Because we can consume content on the move, people hoover it up really quickly.
The model of the BBC has always been to make dramas that are say 6-8 episodes, often they take a long time to make them and don't really adhere to the season idea. Thus they get a hit like the Night Porter or the Body Guard and it gets consumed in a week by most people and then there is no replayability nor any new content of this IP for sometimes 18 months / 2 years.
Their claim used to be this is because we make a lot higher quality, but it isn't true now e.g. look at the VFX for Doctor Who vs the new Picard, it is in a different universe. And you have to remember the BBC is trying to compete in the US with this quality of output.
The difference with say HBO / Netflix if they commission stuff, if it is a hit, they pump that IP to be out such that there is a minimum of one new season per year usually with a lot more episodes.
Netflix are struggling on the replayability issue, as they have found the likes of the US Office / Friends (which they only rent the IP) are the sort of shows that are watched time and time again and there is a vast library of them.
I believe the general rule in the US is if you can get a show to 100 episodes you will be able to resell that IP for many many years to come. How many of the big BBC shows ever get near that sort of episode count?
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
The point (that you are so careful not to engage with) is that if we start allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent, then the whole system falls apart.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent is a pretty good definition of democracy, actually.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
The point (that you are so careful not to engage with) is that if we start allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent, then the whole system falls apart.
But you knew that, didn't you?
It should fall apart if things are luxuries not necessities. The government should not be in the business of providing luxuries and taxing you to pay for other people's tastes.
The fire brigade, NHS, Police etc are matters of life and death. Without them people can die. Without Homes Under the Hammer nobody dies. Only a fool would compare the two . . . oh I see, you knew that, didn't you?
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines of climate change.”
I am struggling to see how "queer" is a defining characteristic for the frontline of climate change....
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
That’s a car crash in the sense that thinking equating the BBC and a fire service amounts to a compelling and convincing argument.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
The point (that you are so careful not to engage with) is that if we start allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent, then the whole system falls apart.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent is a pretty good definition of democracy, actually.
Really? If everyone decided to pay no tax would be the point in having a government?
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
The point (that you are so careful not to engage with) is that if we start allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent, then the whole system falls apart.
But you knew that, didn't you?
It should fall apart if things are luxuries not necessities. The government should not be in the business of providing luxuries and taxing you to pay for other people's tastes.
The fire brigade, NHS, Police etc are matters of life and death. Without them people can die. Without Homes Under the Hammer nobody dies. Only a fool would compare the two . . . oh I see, you knew that, didn't you?
In the early days of Fire Brigades they were employed by Insurance Companies, and if the 'wrong' brigade went to a fire, they might well leave it to burn. Examples of that happening are in various historical documents.
There is another problem that the BBC have (and it isn't totally unique to them). Because we can consume content on the move, people hoover it up really quickly.
The model of the BBC has always been to make dramas that are say 6-8 episodes, often they take a long time to make them and don't really adhere to the season idea.
Thus they get a hit like the Night Porter or the Body Guard and it gets consumed in a week by most people and then there is no replayability nor any new content of this IP for sometimes 18 months / 2 years.
Their claim used to be this is because we make a lot higher quality, but it isn't true now e.g. look at the VFX for Doctor Who vs the new Picard, it is in a different universe.
The difference with say HBO / Netflix if they commission stuff, if it is a hit, they pump that IP to be out such that there is a minimum of one new season per year usually with a lot more episodes.
Netflix are struggling on the replayability issue, as they have found the likes of the US Office / Friends (which they only rent the IP) are the sort of shows that are watched time and time again and there is a vast library of them.
I believe the general rule in the US is if you can get a show to 100 episodes you will be able to resell that IP for many many years to come.
My wife and I love the Big Bang Theory. If there's nothing on or we just want some background noise we often put that on, on Netflix. 14 seasons, 279 episodes. The BBC just can't compete with that.
My issue with the BBC isn't that its great but left or anything like that. The fact is its just not that great. And people need to realise that sooner than later - my generation just does not watch that much BBC - and this isn't a thing that will change with age like left v right, we've grown up with choice and have embraced it.
Unless older people making decisions realise that and adopt changes sooner than later then it is only a matter of time before people that have no love at all for the BBC will make decisions over its future. I couldn't care less if the BBC lives or dies, if you do you should want it on a sustainable model. ITV, Sky, Netflix and more sustain themselves, why can't the BBC?
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
My car insurance can deal with it. Specialist private firms can be set up....
The point I am making is that we CAN abolish all these services so that we can pick and choose our taxes, but it is a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy. Sooner or later we wind up being the US with different tax rates in every town, county and state, patchy coverage everywhere, etc. Those who advocate such schemes are either disingenuous or have not thought through the obvious conclusion. Once you start salami slicing, where do you stop?
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
My car insurance can deal with it. Specialist private firms can be set up....
The point I am making is that we CAN abolish all these services so that we can pick and choose our taxes, but it is a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy. Sooner or later we wind up being the US with different tax rates in every town, county and state, patchy coverage everywhere, etc. Those who advocate such schemes are either disingenuous or have not thought through the obvious conclusion. Once you start salami slicing, where do you stop?
Why stop?
You stop if there's a reason why society needs that service. Society needs the fire brigade, so you stop there.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
In case you didn't know, fires spread. If your neighbours start a fire that could spread to your property etc and vice-versa which is why its considered a necessity. People can die because of fires spreading.
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
The point (that you are so careful not to engage with) is that if we start allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent, then the whole system falls apart.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Allowing tax payers to pick and choose how their taxes are spent is a pretty good definition of democracy, actually.
Really? If everyone decided to pay no tax would be the point in having a government?
How their taxes are spent is not the same as whether they are paid in the first place.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
My car insurance can deal with it. Specialist private firms can be set up....
The point I am making is that we CAN abolish all these services so that we can pick and choose our taxes, but it is a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy. Sooner or later we wind up being the US with different tax rates in every town, county and state, patchy coverage everywhere, etc. Those who advocate such schemes are either disingenuous or have not thought through the obvious conclusion. Once you start salami slicing, where do you stop?
Under that thought, we would still have public ownership of BT/BA/British Steel, British Leyland and the like, beacase, privatisation of those was 'salami slicing' and well, where does it stop?
Each thing should be argued on its own merits, not on the merits of other apples and oranges.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
My car insurance can deal with it. Specialist private firms can be set up....
The point I am making is that we CAN abolish all these services so that we can pick and choose our taxes, but it is a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy. Sooner or later we wind up being the US with different tax rates in every town, county and state, patchy coverage everywhere, etc. Those who advocate such schemes are either disingenuous or have not thought through the obvious conclusion. Once you start salami slicing, where do you stop?
As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines of climate change.”
We’re not far off the point where everyone becomes sick and tired of this pile of wank.
When it comes to votes in real elections, it's way down the priority list for most people. People will do stuff about it till it comes to seriously affecting their automony etc (Banning cars).
What's needed are more centrist/non left voices on climate change. He's not everyone's cup of tea or always right but Elon Musk is an interesting and different advocate for climate change compared to the normal lefty luvvies.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
My car insurance can deal with it. Specialist private firms can be set up....
The point I am making is that we CAN abolish all these services so that we can pick and choose our taxes, but it is a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy. Sooner or later we wind up being the US with different tax rates in every town, county and state, patchy coverage everywhere, etc. Those who advocate such schemes are either disingenuous or have not thought through the obvious conclusion. Once you start salami slicing, where do you stop?
Why stop?
You stop if there's a reason why society needs that service. Society needs the fire brigade, so you stop there.
Fair enough. I hate sports. Let us cut all sports coverage from the BBC. Those who like them can pay for them on Sky.
To paraphrase a poster of this parish, "No one ever died from missing a football match on the telly...."
My wife and I love the Big Bang Theory. If there's nothing on or we just want some background noise we often put that on, on Netflix. 14 seasons, 279 episodes. The BBC just can't compete with that.
My issue with the BBC isn't that its great but left or anything like that. The fact is its just not that great. And people need to realise that sooner than later - my generation just does not watch that much BBC - and this isn't a thing that will change with age like left v right, we've grown up with choice and have embraced it.
Unless older people making decisions realise that and adopt changes sooner than later then it is only a matter of time before people that have no love at all for the BBC will make decisions over its future. I couldn't care less if the BBC lives or dies, if you do you should want it on a sustainable model. ITV, Sky, Netflix and more sustain themselves, why can't the BBC?
Away from drama, another problem is how accessible high quality camera gear and the editing tools are now. You only have to see just how much the production quality on some YouTube channels have improved in a few years. Increasingly they have teams of trained camera operators, editors, etc.
e.g. Linus Tech Tips is just as high quality a production as BBC Click tech show and the difference is LTT put out a new video daily. In fact they release in 4k, unlike the BBC.
A bit like 30-40 years ago you couldn't product high quality music without access to a handful of professional studio, now lots of people can do it from their bedroom.
It's hard to see this guy getting the base out. Then again it's hard to see Bernie attracting pussy moderates. And Warren looks beaten. But Trump MUST be defeated. Four more years of him is not an option. So where does this leave us? Pete or Amy to come through and take it? Both did very well in NH.
The BBC needs to compete in the free market on equal terms with everyone else.
No more public tax to pay for it.
No it does not..
Why not?
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it? Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Don't put words into my mouth thank you v much. No reason why the licence cannot continue..it just needs the political will.... no.license feeand the bbc becomes as crap as all the rest of the channels...
That's a good point. The reason TV in this country is quite high quality is because the BBC is and the others have to compete.
Looking online it seems that right now on the BBC's flagship channel BBC1 Homes Under the Hammer has just finished. Apparently now is a show called Wanted Down Under, then Defenders UK and Bargain Hunt.
Can you tell me what is such "high quality" about those that we need a compulsory tax to pay for them.
Real high quality shows that are made high quality compete not with the BBC but with a global audience as they're exported. Shows like Downton Abbey, Game of Thrones and The Crown have a worldwide audience not a British one.
Try looking at BBC4 programmes, BBC2 programmes rather than daytime BBC1.
I think Wanted Down Under might be about to go into decline :-) .
The current one is "rent in the sun for the winter", which is a new version of the "rent out your pad in London to live in a big house in the country amongst the poor people".
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
Why stop?
You stop if there's a reason why society needs that service. Society needs the fire brigade, so you stop there.
Fair enough. I hate sports. Let us cut all sports coverage from the BBC. Those who like them can pay for them on Sky.
To paraphrase a poster of this parish, "No one ever died from missing a football match on the telly...."
That's fine. There's ITV which can do it as well, or channel 4, or BT, or Sky.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
Healthcare, the police, the fire brigade are a necessity.
No they are not. I do not need them, why should I pay for them?
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
If you want to argue that then be my guest.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
What do I "need" the Fire Brigade for? My house is not on fire. And if install the correct fire suppression systems then I will never have a fire in the house.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
You may need the fire service to extricate you from a car crash or other accident
My car insurance can deal with it. Specialist private firms can be set up....
The point I am making is that we CAN abolish all these services so that we can pick and choose our taxes, but it is a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy. Sooner or later we wind up being the US with different tax rates in every town, county and state, patchy coverage everywhere, etc. Those who advocate such schemes are either disingenuous or have not thought through the obvious conclusion. Once you start salami slicing, where do you stop?
Why stop?
You stop if there's a reason why society needs that service. Society needs the fire brigade, so you stop there.
Fair enough. I hate sports. Let us cut all sports coverage from the BBC. Those who like them can pay for them on Sky.
To paraphrase a poster of this parish, "No one ever died from missing a football match on the telly...."
The BBC are rubbish at sport and most sport coverage is on Sky or BT that we actually pay for it we want to follow it
Comments
Yes I'm seriously unclear as to why the BBC might struggle to compete with Tiny Pop etc.
Furthermore if it can't I'm seriously unclear as to why we should care.
There's no advertising on Netflix, which has a dedicated Children's section and thousands of programs.
No more public tax to pay for it.
Would Yorkshire have powers equal to Holyrood? Will we be setting our health and education policies? Will we have a Barnett[sp] Formula? Will we be able to set tax rates?
If the answer is yes, then devolution equates to carving England up into pieces and denying it the political identity that Scotland enjoys currently.
If the answer is no, then devolution equates to a second class, inferior Balkanisation of England for the sake of some glorified councils.
I'm not voting for any party that advocates cutting England into bits. If Scotland's good enough for a Parliament then so are we.
He isn't.
I find little on Netflix that I like. Too much low grade American filler, amongst a few decent films.
I don't see why my children should watch adverts then I should be taxed to fund your children's choices? There's no justification for a compulsory tax in 2020 for a small handful of largely crap TV channels many of which don't even run 24/7.
Trying to settle an upset teething or jetlagged infant who's woken in the night, good look finding something for them on CBeebies. Commercial kids TV manages to be available 24/7 though without any taxes.
I would happily pay a reduced licence fee for Radio, News and Sport coverage probably however.
It is a bit harder to tell whether Klobuchar will do well in SC. She hasn't got Peter's "baggage" but I don't think Minnesota Nice is that big a selling point down in SC.
I actually do think Biden may have a very good night because the African-American community tends to be quite loyal when it comes to voting. He might be worth a trading bet into SC.
Finally, I don't think Sanders has peaked. If Warren does exit, I can see a lot of her base heading to him. Moreover, the hard left can see control of the Democrats is within their grasp. They will not let that go.
Why is the BBC so bad in your eyes that people won't voluntarily subscribe to it?
Or if it is good enough that people will voluntarily do so then what's the problem?
Professor Gabriel Leung, chair of public health medicine in the city, said on Tuesday even if the coronavirus kills just 1 per cent of sufferers, it could still wipe out as many as 45million people.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7994665/Killer-coronavirus-poses-greater-global-threat-terrorism-World-Health-Organisation-warns.html
I love how his "nothing is more important than the Climate Crisis" is pledge number, er, 3.
The BBCs defenders are not worried because the BBC is great, they're worried because they know deep down its just not that special. If it was special, people would voluntarily pay for it - but they know if it was optional people would stop doing so. And why shouldn't they? Why should I pay the BBC a tax just so my daughter can watch Disney Jr? Why should I pay the BBC a tax if I want to watch Sky News?
If he enacts all his plans, it is radical shift in the US.
For instance I do not have diabetes so I should get a discount on my taxes to remove support for diabetes. In fact, I make virtually no use of the NHS so other people who do use it should pay for it. Perhaps a form of health insurance would work? I am sure The Donald can give us a few pointers.
I rarely call the cops for anything, so another discount there... and I have never called the Fire Brigade, so another tax break there.....
So many options. I could spend my entire life just monitoring what I am due to pay taxes on. It would be a libertarian paradise. And my idea of hell.....
The BBC is not. Its a luxury that you can choose if you want it or not. If you want a bottle of wine you don't get a wine tax that then the government gives you a preselected wine of its choice whether you want it or not.
I watch more on the BFI player, which is fantastic value. I listen to BBC radio a lot too.
To be fair, this is what I wanted to happen if we left the EU; one party saying they would stop free movement and the other saying they’d keep it. Fair enough, we’ll see how important it is to people. I’d guess it will dominate the next election if Starmer wins and has this policy
Outside of the healthcare for all (which obviously is agreed by all parties in the UK), there is all sorts of stuff like much stronger unions / jobs links to those etc. It certainly isn't Orange book lib demery.
Before I looked more closely, I just heard the headline stuff and thought it wasn't that radical by our standards, but actually it is.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
Sanders 6.6 / 7
Bloomberg 7.8 / 8.2
The idea that people only sit and watch it through the big moving picture box in their living room is totally out dated and there is no way without a really big brother approach they can ever work out if you have paid or not.
I might need them later, but I can be taxed at the point of use.
The BBC OTOH is not something that anyone might "need" later. Nobody ever "needs" it. Some people want it, they can pay for it, nobody "needs" it.
I assume this is serious.
https://twitter.com/VICE/status/1225459139633086468
They would now be the pre-eminent global power in their field.
Quite tragic, really.
Ironically, a lot of the cultural destruction of community links will be by the people who voted nostalgically.
In 2019 there were785k Brits in the EU, 70% of whom were in Spain, the vast majority presumably not competing for Spanish jobs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46632854
Seems there were 3.6m eu immigrants in the uk
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/eu-migration-to-and-from-the-uk/
It’s just not a popular policy.
For entertainment, I would say the driver for a number of years has been HBO and more recently Netflix. They totally changed the game in what is expected in terms of production quality of a tv show.
For sports, it is Sky coverage.
For news, I would say yes.
I thought you right-wing types were all for personal responsibility and not putting burdens on the state... or is it all just about contributing as little as possible except where it benefits you or matches your prejudices?
"support" - say nice words but not do anything
"defend" - I like the principle of the idea.
Can you tell me what is such "high quality" about those that we need a compulsory tax to pay for them.
Real high quality shows that are made high quality compete not with the BBC but with a global audience as they're exported. Shows like Downton Abbey, Game of Thrones and The Crown have a worldwide audience not a British one.
"Bloomberg said in 2015 'all the crime' is in minority areas"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51466036
The BBC is never a necessity. Nobody will die because they missed Homes Under the Hammer.
We need to pay a compulsory tax to pay for "Channel Off Air" do we? If you think BBC4 is great you can pay for it, what's the harm in that?
But you knew that, didn't you?
I bet those dice are loaded.
The model of the BBC has always been to make dramas that are say 6-8 episodes, often they take a long time to make them and don't really adhere to the season idea. Thus they get a hit like the Night Porter or the Body Guard and it gets consumed in a week by most people and then there is no replayability nor any new content of this IP for sometimes 18 months / 2 years.
Their claim used to be this is because we make a lot higher quality, but it isn't true now e.g. look at the VFX for Doctor Who vs the new Picard, it is in a different universe. And you have to remember the BBC is trying to compete in the US with this quality of output.
The difference with say HBO / Netflix if they commission stuff, if it is a hit, they pump that IP to be out such that there is a minimum of one new season per year usually with a lot more episodes.
Netflix are struggling on the replayability issue, as they have found the likes of the US Office / Friends (which they only rent the IP) are the sort of shows that are watched time and time again and there is a vast library of them.
I believe the general rule in the US is if you can get a show to 100 episodes you will be able to resell that IP for many many years to come. How many of the big BBC shows ever get near that sort of episode count?
The fire brigade, NHS, Police etc are matters of life and death. Without them people can die. Without Homes Under the Hammer nobody dies. Only a fool would compare the two . . . oh I see, you knew that, didn't you?
My issue with the BBC isn't that its great but left or anything like that. The fact is its just not that great. And people need to realise that sooner than later - my generation just does not watch that much BBC - and this isn't a thing that will change with age like left v right, we've grown up with choice and have embraced it.
Unless older people making decisions realise that and adopt changes sooner than later then it is only a matter of time before people that have no love at all for the BBC will make decisions over its future. I couldn't care less if the BBC lives or dies, if you do you should want it on a sustainable model. ITV, Sky, Netflix and more sustain themselves, why can't the BBC?
The point I am making is that we CAN abolish all these services so that we can pick and choose our taxes, but it is a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy. Sooner or later we wind up being the US with different tax rates in every town, county and state, patchy coverage everywhere, etc. Those who advocate such schemes are either disingenuous or have not thought through the obvious conclusion. Once you start salami slicing, where do you stop?
You stop if there's a reason why society needs that service. Society needs the fire brigade, so you stop there.
Each thing should be argued on its own merits, not on the merits of other apples and oranges.
What's needed are more centrist/non left voices on climate change. He's not everyone's cup of tea or always right but Elon Musk is an interesting and different advocate for climate change compared to the normal lefty luvvies.
To paraphrase a poster of this parish, "No one ever died from missing a football match on the telly...."
e.g. Linus Tech Tips is just as high quality a production as BBC Click tech show and the difference is LTT put out a new video daily. In fact they release in 4k, unlike the BBC.
A bit like 30-40 years ago you couldn't product high quality music without access to a handful of professional studio, now lots of people can do it from their bedroom.
The current one is "rent in the sun for the winter", which is a new version of the "rent out your pad in London to live in a big house in the country amongst the poor people".
Was that an argument?