At the end of the day, either you believe we should have a national broadcaster or we shouldn't. If we should then it must be available to all, so you have to ask difficult questions about how it should be funded. I don't believe a "subscription model" is compatible with being a national broadcaster. It just becomes another pay tv service to which many or most will not have access. I doubt it would survive. Advertising is possible, but for many lack of advertising is something they like about the BBC. So I think if you ditch the licence fee, then you revert to taxpayer funding. Which is seriously problematic in itself, both for what it means for journalistic and editorial independence from the Government, and, on a basic level, that Conservative governments don't seem to believe in funding the BBC from taxpayers money at all (hence scrapping funding for the World Service, over 75s etc.
Of course if you don't believe in the value of a national broadcaster then you're not going to care. But if you do then there are no easy alternatives to what we currently have. BTW for all the talk about how the licence fee is outdated for modern consumption of media, most people opposed to the licence fee were probably against it 20 years ago or longer.
20 years ago I was at uni. The only way to watch tv was through a set. Begrudgingly part of life. Today’s students and young people are consuming almost all their tv on portable devices other than TVs.
The license fee is like high street business rates, a tax that only makes sense before the internet changed everything.
There seems to be a split between those who try to argue that the licence fee should be ended for the BBC's own good. Because apparently nobody will own TVs in future. And those who object to it in principle.
But if the former is true then the process of reform should naturally be driven by the BBC, not the Government.
Eugenics is foolish. Research into genetics today reveals that your 'code' is not engraved in stone - it can change during your life. Therefore it is pointless to try and find a set of what we think are perfect traits and replicate them. It is nutrition that matters - nutrition is the real key to health, not some silly blueprint.
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.
Where do you place national events in that? Royal and other similar events (weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour...). Big political events (elections, party conferences...). As mentioned above, "protected" sporting events?
I do find it strange how some people seem to regard not watching normal TV as some mark of virility.
What do you define as "normal TV"?
Your normal may be different to my normal.
I'm watching Endeavour. It's on ITV right now.
That’s normal.
I'm watching Stargate SG-1 on demand while my wife is watching Love Island.
That's normal too.
Implying that watching Stargate SG-1 is normal.
Hold on, I liked Stargate SG-1!
It's weird, because I am also watching Stargate SG-1... hence why I knew it wasn't normal.
Funny coincidence. Loved it when it was on air but didn't watch it again for a decade or so after Continuum. Started rewatching late last year, currently on Season 4.
Rewatched the whole series last year - has held up pretty well I reckon, even the changes in personnel and big bads in seasons 9 and 10.
I do find it strange how some people seem to regard not watching normal TV as some mark of virility.
What do you define as "normal TV"?
Your normal may be different to my normal.
I'm watching Endeavour. It's on ITV right now.
That’s normal.
I'm watching Stargate SG-1 on demand while my wife is watching Love Island.
That's normal too.
Implying that watching Stargate SG-1 is normal.
Hold on, I liked Stargate SG-1!
It's weird, because I am also watching Stargate SG-1... hence why I knew it wasn't normal.
Funny coincidence. Loved it when it was on air but didn't watch it again for a decade or so after Continuum. Started rewatching late last year, currently on Season 4.
Rewatched the whole series last year - has held up pretty well I reckon, even the changes in personnel and big bads in seasons 9 and 10.
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.
Where do you place national events in that? Royal and other similar events (weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour...). Big political events (elections, party conferences...). As mentioned above, "protected" sporting events?
I think those are some of the key roles in a public broadcaster, in addition to making stuff that isn't otherwise profitable.
Conservative party risks losing voters if it continues 'vendetta' against the BBC, senior Tories warn
"Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Merriman says it is “worrying” that senior Government aides appear to be “ramping up an unedifying vendetta” against the broadcaster.
Damian Green, the Former Cabinet minister, said: “Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism”."
Good luck Tory MPs with Cummings and his mad schemes.
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.
Where do you place national events in that? Royal and other similar events (weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour...). Big political events (elections, party conferences...). As mentioned above, "protected" sporting events?
Again its the content that matters. There's a plethora of broadcasters, its the content that's the issue.
On election night you could tune in to results on BBC, Sky News, ITV, Channel 4, YouTube, countless websites and however much else. The BBC is simply not that important anymore - the content it produces can be but how the content is broadcast is not.
Ditto for protected (and even unprotected) sporting events. I watched last years Champions League Final on YouTube. That's not "protected" but it works. What is "protected" in sport is not the broadcaster, its the content.
Conservative party risks losing voters if it continues 'vendetta' against the BBC, senior Tories warn
"Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Merriman says it is “worrying” that senior Government aides appear to be “ramping up an unedifying vendetta” against the broadcaster.
Damian Green, the Former Cabinet minister, said: “Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism”."
Good luck Tory MPs with Cummings and his mad schemes.
Wait until Radio 2 listeners find out...
Is it just me, or are there signs that the Daily Telegraph is not quite the Daily Borisgraph of a few months ago any more?
Conservative party risks losing voters if it continues 'vendetta' against the BBC, senior Tories warn
"Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Merriman says it is “worrying” that senior Government aides appear to be “ramping up an unedifying vendetta” against the broadcaster.
Damian Green, the Former Cabinet minister, said: “Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism”."
Good luck Tory MPs with Cummings and his mad schemes.
Wait until Radio 2 listeners find out...
Is it just me, or are there signs that the Daily Telegraph is not quite the Daily Borisgraph of a few months ago any more?
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.
Where do you place national events in that? Royal and other similar events (weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour...). Big political events (elections, party conferences...). As mentioned above, "protected" sporting events?
Back in December, I watched the Election Night coverage on SKY News.
And as a Republican, I don't bother with Royal drivel
Suggesting On Demand is not normal TV is like suggesting that HDTV isn't normal TV. Or that Digital TV isn't normal TV. Or that Colour TV isn't normal TV.
TVs have evolved over time. Colour, digital, HD and on demand are all perfectly normal TV in 2020.
I do find it strange how some people seem to regard not watching normal TV as some mark of virility.
What do you define as "normal TV"?
Your normal may be different to my normal.
I'm watching Endeavour. It's on ITV right now.
That’s normal.
I'm watching Stargate SG-1 on demand while my wife is watching Love Island.
That's normal too.
Watching On Demand is normal behaviour, but it isn't normal TV.
Why not? What's abnormal about it in 2020?
It isn't a broadcast. That's what I'm getting at.
But in 2020 its normal.
What is normal has evolved. Riding on cart and horse used to be normal, its not anymore.
He didn't say it was abnormal/not normal. He said it wasn't normal TV.
He's wrong.
TVs come with On Demand as standard now.
That just means you can use your TV in the same way as your laptop.
Your TV probably doesn't have Excel. But yes the distinction between TV and Laptop is blurry when it comes to watching broadcasts. Again part of why the licence fee is obsolete.
Suggesting On Demand is not normal TV is like suggesting that HDTV isn't normal TV. Or that Digital TV isn't normal TV. Or that Colour TV isn't normal TV.
TVs have evolved over time. Colour, digital, HD and on demand are all perfectly normal TV in 2020.
On demand is the equivalent of watching a DVD. It isn't the equivalent of watching broadcast television.
Conservative party risks losing voters if it continues 'vendetta' against the BBC, senior Tories warn
"Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Merriman says it is “worrying” that senior Government aides appear to be “ramping up an unedifying vendetta” against the broadcaster.
Damian Green, the Former Cabinet minister, said: “Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism”."
Good luck Tory MPs with Cummings and his mad schemes.
Wait until Radio 2 listeners find out...
Is it just me, or are there signs that the Daily Telegraph is not quite the Daily Borisgraph of a few months ago any more?
Suggesting On Demand is not normal TV is like suggesting that HDTV isn't normal TV. Or that Digital TV isn't normal TV. Or that Colour TV isn't normal TV.
TVs have evolved over time. Colour, digital, HD and on demand are all perfectly normal TV in 2020.
On demand is the equivalent of watching a DVD. It isn't the equivalent of watching broadcast television.
There is no difference.
Why get hung up on what happens to be broadcast now as opposed to what was broadcast 10 minutes, 25 minutes, hours, days, or years ago?
Is there a distinction between streaming a live program that you're joining 20 minutes after its broadcast started and you select an option to view it from the start . . . or a live program you started when it started broadcasting and you pressed pause for 20 minutes?
TV has evolved. Broadcast is just one of many mechanisms to get the video and sound to your device. If you mean live broadcast say live broadcast not "normal" but even then you can stream live broadcasts so what difference does it make?
Eugenics is foolish. Research into genetics today reveals that your 'code' is not engraved in stone - it can change during your life. Therefore it is pointless to try and find a set of what we think are perfect traits and replicate them. It is nutrition that matters - nutrition is the real key to health, not some silly blueprint.
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.
Where do you place national events in that? Royal and other similar events (weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour...). Big political events (elections, party conferences...). As mentioned above, "protected" sporting events?
Again its the content that matters. There's a plethora of broadcasters, its the content that's the issue.
On election night you could tune in to results on BBC, Sky News, ITV, Channel 4, YouTube, countless websites and however much else. The BBC is simply not that important anymore - the content it produces can be but how the content is broadcast is not.
Ditto for protected (and even unprotected) sporting events. I watched last years Champions League Final on YouTube. That's not "protected" but it works. What is "protected" in sport is not the broadcaster, its the content.
Yawn;nnnn mmmmmm. You've made that point 47 times today
Suggesting On Demand is not normal TV is like suggesting that HDTV isn't normal TV. Or that Digital TV isn't normal TV. Or that Colour TV isn't normal TV.
TVs have evolved over time. Colour, digital, HD and on demand are all perfectly normal TV in 2020.
On demand is the equivalent of watching a DVD. It isn't the equivalent of watching broadcast television.
There is no difference.
Why get hung up on what happens to be broadcast now as opposed to what was broadcast 10 minutes, 25 minutes, hours, days, or years ago?
Is there a distinction between streaming a live program that you're joining 20 minutes after its broadcast started and you select an option to view it from the start . . . or a live program you started when it started broadcasting and you pressed pause for 20 minutes?
TV has evolved. Broadcast is just one of many mechanisms to get the video and sound to your device. If you mean live broadcast say live broadcast not "normal" but even then you can stream live broadcasts so what difference does it make?
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Or...
If the BBC hadn't put Farage on TV at every opportunity they could think of, then Brexit would never have happened.
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.
Where do you place national events in that? Royal and other similar events (weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour...). Big political events (elections, party conferences...). As mentioned above, "protected" sporting events?
Again its the content that matters. There's a plethora of broadcasters, its the content that's the issue.
On election night you could tune in to results on BBC, Sky News, ITV, Channel 4, YouTube, countless websites and however much else. The BBC is simply not that important anymore - the content it produces can be but how the content is broadcast is not.
Ditto for protected (and even unprotected) sporting events. I watched last years Champions League Final on YouTube. That's not "protected" but it works. What is "protected" in sport is not the broadcaster, its the content.
Yawn;nnnn mmmmmm. You've made that point 47 times today
I only wrote that reply because @alex_ asked. What would be more polite, to ignore his question like there was no reply?
Eugenics is foolish. Research into genetics today reveals that your 'code' is not engraved in stone - it can change during your life. Therefore it is pointless to try and find a set of what we think are perfect traits and replicate them. It is nutrition that matters - nutrition is the real key to health, not some silly blueprint.
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.
Hang on.
We know selective breeding works for other animals - the entire bloodstock industry would not exist without it. So why would you assume that it doesn't work for humans?
Eugenics is foolish. Research into genetics today reveals that your 'code' is not engraved in stone - it can change during your life. Therefore it is pointless to try and find a set of what we think are perfect traits and replicate them. It is nutrition that matters - nutrition is the real key to health, not some silly blueprint.
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.
Hang on.
We know selective breeding works for other animals - the entire bloodstock industry would not exist without it. So why would you assume that it doesn't work for humans?
I thought the difference between a caucus and a primary was that at a caucus everyone went to the same meeting and voted in person (and without secrecy) at the same time.
I thought the difference between a caucus and a primary was that at a caucus everyone went to the same meeting and voted in person (and without secrecy) at the same time.
How does that happen early?
Seems they vote as if it is a normal ballot box:
"At the early vote site, voters will receive a voter card and fill out a paper ballot, both of which will have an identification number that correlates the two items.
After filling out the ballot with their preferences, voters will return both the voter card and the ballot to a designated ballot box."
I thought the difference between a caucus and a primary was that at a caucus everyone went to the same meeting and voted in person (and without secrecy) at the same time.
How does that happen early?
Seems they vote as if it is a normal ballot box:
"At the early vote site, voters will receive a voter card and fill out a paper ballot, both of which will have an identification number that correlates the two items.
After filling out the ballot with their preferences, voters will return both the voter card and the ballot to a designated ballot box."
Eugenics is foolish. Research into genetics today reveals that your 'code' is not engraved in stone - it can change during your life. Therefore it is pointless to try and find a set of what we think are perfect traits and replicate them. It is nutrition that matters - nutrition is the real key to health, not some silly blueprint.
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.
Hang on.
We know selective breeding works for other animals - the entire bloodstock industry would not exist without it. So why would you assume that it doesn't work for humans?
Because, one the whole, the capabilities of humans, unlike other animals, are driven mainly by their cerebral cortex not their instinctual brains. And the cerebral cortex reaching its maximum potential is overwhelmingly driven by nurture, not nature.
More relevant would be the post-1920s influence by Cyril Burt, the fraudster at UCL who on the basis of his faked data advised government to institute the divide between grammar schools and secondary modern schools with selection at age 11 on the basis of what was essentially an IQ test, the "11+". Burt treasured a copy of "Hereditary Genius" given to him by Francis Galton. Goodness knows what rubbish may soon be instituted on the basis of Plomin's research at KCL. I doubt he'll pay much attention to the study of the descendants of victims of the 1944 Dutch famine that showed that developments in your life can affect the "information" you pass on biologically - as Lamarck thought: characteristics acquired in a lifetime can affect what is inherited. As I understand it, the mechanism is not well understood.
As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no evidence for Lamarckism.
Proponents of Lamarckism (such as Trofim Lysenko) have done truly huge amounts of damage -- way, way more than Sir Cyril.
Lysenko was a real criminal, who ensured his enemies died in concentration camps so that he could propagate a pseudo-scientific theory about genetics.
Eugenics is foolish. Research into genetics today reveals that your 'code' is not engraved in stone - it can change during your life. Therefore it is pointless to try and find a set of what we think are perfect traits and replicate them. It is nutrition that matters - nutrition is the real key to health, not some silly blueprint.
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.
Hang on.
We know selective breeding works for other animals - the entire bloodstock industry would not exist without it. So why would you assume that it doesn't work for humans?
Very probably if everybody who needed eye glasses were forcibly sterilised at puberty (or killed off, and perhaps then eaten), then in the future nobody would need eye glasses. In that sense, eugenics isn't "foolish". But such a policy would be morally wrong, obv.
Bad example. Requiring glasses is not genetic. People born with 20/20 eyesight can end up needing glasses later in life, genetics be damned. Especially if there's environmental factors.
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Yes it would be too cynical - this debate was always coming. The feelings against it are more intense, generally, on the right, but the more lefty of my acquaintance sound little different in their antipathy for the BBC in my experience, and usually the reasons given are the same - about paying for something they don't use etc etc - so even if the subtext is different coming from tis government compared to another, and the perceived need to fix it in a particular way may be different, we would be having the debate, I have no doubt about that.
Sense really has broken out if Mason is phoning for Kier.
'Another future is possible'? I know almost all slogans are either bad or easily interpreted to mean something bland or awful, but that is a pretty bad one.
So, the Corbynites are going to start an all out war on Starmer if he appoints Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor, apparently.
Predictable. Source?
I believe they were reacting to a Guardian article published suggesting she was the choice of the Corbynsceptic wing of the party. As for what Starmer actually wants? I don't know, though he might well go for the safer option of Anneliese Dodds.
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Yes it would be too cynical - this debate was always coming. The feelings against it are more intense, generally, on the right, but the more lefty of my acquaintance sound little different in their antipathy for the BBC in my experience, and usually the reasons given are the same - about paying for something they don't use etc etc - so even if the subtext is different coming from tis government compared to another, and the perceived need to fix it in a particular way may be different, we would be having the debate, I have no doubt about that.
Is there any actual evidence concerning these people who never watch the BBC?
Like never? Not even on say Cup Final day or new series of Dr Who or whatever?
Are there any left? We used to have it on everwhere at work until they sacked/ forced out most of the decent DJs for the appaling crime of being male, and replaced them with a load of has beens from Radio 1. Stopping listening wasn't a protest at it being woke, it's simply that the DJs are now mostly dire (only really Ken Bruce left who's any good) , and they have brought with them loads of naf music from radio 1 (if I wanted to listen to radio 1, it was already available). Now people in different buildings at work are listening to a mix of Radio 1 (da youth), various commercial radio, or nothing (my office). Work's new van now connects to bluetooth, so I listen to music I actually like via Spotify if I'm out and about. I would have paid a modest sub for the old radio 2 (say £20 a year - IIRC it cost a fraction of that per current listener), no way I'd pay for it now.
Sense really has broken out if Mason is phoning for Kier.
'Another future is possible'? I know almost all slogans are either bad or easily interpreted to mean something bland or awful, but that is a pretty bad one.
So, the Corbynites are going to start an all out war on Starmer if he appoints Rachel Reeves as his Shadow Chancellor, apparently.
Predictable. Source?
I believe they were reacting to a Guardian article published suggesting she was the choice of the Corbynsceptic wing of the party. As for what Starmer actually wants? I don't know, though he might well go for the safer option of Anneliese Dodds.
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Yes it would be too cynical - this debate was always coming. The feelings against it are more intense, generally, on the right, but the more lefty of my acquaintance sound little different in their antipathy for the BBC in my experience, and usually the reasons given are the same - about paying for something they don't use etc etc - so even if the subtext is different coming from tis government compared to another, and the perceived need to fix it in a particular way may be different, we would be having the debate, I have no doubt about that.
Is there any actual evidence concerning these people who never watch the BBC?
Like never? Not even on say Cup Final day or new series of Dr Who or whatever?
I have no idea nor do I think a casual use of never which could be substituted for barely or rarely makes a difference to how many people feel or the implications of that feeling. I dont share the view, but with or without stats there are clearly people who politically are opposed to the way the bbc operates at present from both left and right and, more worryingly for the bbc, people who are pretty indifferent about it even if they do watch a cup final now and then.
Is a majority in favour of the radical aims of reform? Probably not, but how many are in favour sufficiently to prevent it from happening? Same problem as the UK union.
Conservative party risks losing voters if it continues 'vendetta' against the BBC, senior Tories warn
"Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Merriman says it is “worrying” that senior Government aides appear to be “ramping up an unedifying vendetta” against the broadcaster.
Damian Green, the Former Cabinet minister, said: “Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism”."
Good luck Tory MPs with Cummings and his mad schemes.
Wait until Radio 2 listeners find out...
Damian Green is what Thatcher would have called a 'Wet'. They can be safely ignored by leaders with big majorities.
More relevant would be the post-1920s influence by Cyril Burt, the fraudster at UCL who on the basis of his faked data advised government to institute the divide between grammar schools and secondary modern schools with selection at age 11 on the basis of what was essentially an IQ test, the "11+". Burt treasured a copy of "Hereditary Genius" given to him by Francis Galton. Goodness knows what rubbish may soon be instituted on the basis of Plomin's research at KCL. I doubt he'll pay much attention to the study of the descendants of victims of the 1944 Dutch famine that showed that developments in your life can affect the "information" you pass on biologically - as Lamarck thought: characteristics acquired in a lifetime can affect what is inherited. As I understand it, the mechanism is not well understood.
As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no evidence for Lamarckism.
Proponents of Lamarckism (such as Trofim Lysenko) have done truly huge amounts of damage -- way, way more than Sir Cyril.
Lysenko was a real criminal, who ensured his enemies died in concentration camps so that he could propagate a pseudo-scientific theory about genetics.
Burt was just a fraud (probably).
I'm neither selling an ism nor doing promo for Lysenko. Did you take a look at the epigenetics research on the children and grandchildren of the victims of the 1944 Dutch hunger winter?
You said " ... developments in your life can affect the "information" you pass on biologically - as Lamarck thought: characteristics acquired in a lifetime can affect what is inherited."
You are selling an -ism. What you have stated is the very definition of Lamarckism -- acquired characteristics can be inherited.
You may not be directing a promo for Lysenko, but you are singing in the backup band.
Sense really has broken out if Mason is phoning for Kier.
'Another future is possible'? I know almost all slogans are either bad or easily interpreted to mean something bland or awful, but that is a pretty bad one.
No, it's a pretty good one, when you did a bit deeper in context.
It emphasises that Starmer is seeking radical change in the face of efforts to paint him as the establishment candidate. It is also uncannily similar to the "Another Europe is Possible" organisation which was quite prominent on the left in campaigning in favour of the EU from a far left perspective. That's no coincidence. For now, Starmer is targeting the votes of those on the far left who are conflicted by Momentum's claim that Labour lost because the party went too far towards a Remain position.
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Yes it would be too cynical - this debate was always coming. The feelings against it are more intense, generally, on the right, but the more lefty of my acquaintance sound little different in their antipathy for the BBC in my experience, and usually the reasons given are the same - about paying for something they don't use etc etc - so even if the subtext is different coming from tis government compared to another, and the perceived need to fix it in a particular way may be different, we would be having the debate, I have no doubt about that.
This debate has been going on for at least 40 years. I know because for a few years in the early 80s I was employed by the BBC to head the unit putting the case for it and the licence fee's survival.
More factional division. Is it too much to ask that Long-Bailey's campaign takes a leaf from Starmer's book and conduct themselves in a principled way which avoids attacking other candidates in the interests of restoring party unity?
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Yes it would be too cynical - this debate was always coming. The feelings against it are more intense, generally, on the right, but the more lefty of my acquaintance sound little different in their antipathy for the BBC in my experience, and usually the reasons given are the same - about paying for something they don't use etc etc - so even if the subtext is different coming from tis government compared to another, and the perceived need to fix it in a particular way may be different, we would be having the debate, I have no doubt about that.
This debate has been going on for at least 40 years. I know because for a few years in the early 80s I was employed by the BBC to head the unit putting the case for it and the licence fee's survival.
Its different this time though.
I wasn't around 40 years ago but 20 years ago the debate was licence fee v advertising (like ITV).
Its different now though. How many people 20 or 40 years ago would have honestly said "I don't watch the BBC why should I pay for it?" Now there are people who watch live TV but watch little to no BBC, something that was unthinkable even in recent the past.
There are growing numbers of people who genuinely don't use and thus don't care about the BBC.
Conservative party risks losing voters if it continues 'vendetta' against the BBC, senior Tories warn
"Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Merriman says it is “worrying” that senior Government aides appear to be “ramping up an unedifying vendetta” against the broadcaster.
Damian Green, the Former Cabinet minister, said: “Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism”."
Good luck Tory MPs with Cummings and his mad schemes.
Wait until Radio 2 listeners find out...
Damian Green is what Thatcher would have called a 'Wet'. They can be safely ignored by leaders with big majorities.
A 'damp' rather, particularly after he's been on the laptop.
Sense really has broken out if Mason is phoning for Kier.
'Another future is possible'? I know almost all slogans are either bad or easily interpreted to mean something bland or awful, but that is a pretty bad one.
No, it's a pretty good one, when you did a bit deeper in context.
It emphasises that Starmer is seeking radical change in the face of efforts to paint him as the establishment candidate. It is also uncannily similar to the "Another Europe is Possible" organisation which was quite prominent on the left in campaigning in favour of the EU from a far left perspective. That's no coincidence. For now, Starmer is targeting the votes of those on the far left who are conflicted by Momentum's claim that Labour lost because the party went too far towards a Remain position.
I think the EU has shown convincingly that another Europe is not possible - at least for the forseeable future, which is why we are better off out.
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Yes it would be too cynical - this debate was always coming. The feelings against it are more intense, generally, on the right, but the more lefty of my acquaintance sound little different in their antipathy for the BBC in my experience, and usually the reasons given are the same - about paying for something they don't use etc etc - so even if the subtext is different coming from tis government compared to another, and the perceived need to fix it in a particular way may be different, we would be having the debate, I have no doubt about that.
This debate has been going on for at least 40 years. I know because for a few years in the early 80s I was employed by the BBC to head the unit putting the case for it and the licence fee's survival.
Isn't it a bit like Euroskeptism? I mean that debate dates back to before we joined the EU, and has washed backwards and forwards as a live issue depending on who was in power, what the EU was up to, what the media of the day chose to report etc - but ultimately there was a direction of travel, where an eventual wave of Euroskeptism rose up high enough to crash down on our membership, and wash us out of the EU. The BBC licence fee debate is similar. Some people have objected to it for years, public and political opinion has washed backwards and forwards, but now we appear to have hit a "perfect storm" tipping point, where the government is license fee skeptic, the public isn't over bothered, and technology is making the whole license fee concept an anachronism. It doesn't seem surprising that its likely to be gone in the next 5 years.
So is current science then. The results of the research with the descendants of the Dutch hunger winter survivors surprised many. This isn't wacko fringe stuff. I'm no specialist but I'm confident that I summarised the main finding properly. Lamarck isn't written off wholesale, 100%, any more. An article in Cell (2014); an article in Nature (2010).
People who survived the famine may be those naturally predisposed to needing less food, and they may have particular genetic profiles that are then over represented in the wider population.
It is alway wise to be very suspicious of Lamarckism or Lamarckists.
Many people find Lamarckism satisfying for political or religious religions. Including many admirable people, like GB Shaw or WB Yeats.
Many people find Darwinism too nihilistic, again for political or religious reasons.
Arguments about BBC funding are almost as boring as cricket.
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
Yes it would be too cynical - this debate was always coming. The feelings against it are more intense, generally, on the right, but the more lefty of my acquaintance sound little different in their antipathy for the BBC in my experience, and usually the reasons given are the same - about paying for something they don't use etc etc - so even if the subtext is different coming from tis government compared to another, and the perceived need to fix it in a particular way may be different, we would be having the debate, I have no doubt about that.
This debate has been going on for at least 40 years. I know because for a few years in the early 80s I was employed by the BBC to head the unit putting the case for it and the licence fee's survival.
Isn't it a bit like Euroskeptism? I mean that debate dates back to before we joined the EU, and has washed backwards and forwards as a live issue depending on who was in power, what the EU was up to, what the media of the day chose to report etc - but ultimately there was a direction of travel, where an eventual wave of Euroskeptism rose up high enough to crash down on our membership, and wash us out of the EU. The BBC licence fee debate is similar. Some people have objected to it for years, public and political opinion has washed backwards and forwards, but now we appear to have hit a "perfect storm" tipping point, where the government is license fee skeptic, the public isn't over bothered, and technology is making the whole license fee concept an anachronism. It doesn't seem surprising that its likely to be gone in the next 5 years.
It is very like Euroscepticism -- but with one important different.
It is older people who are by and larger Eurosceptics. It is older people who watch TV and (perhaps) remember the BBC fondly.
The BBC is actually in worse trouble than the Europhiles. Demographics may eventually reverse the referendum result of 2016, but it won't ever help the BBC.
Age demographics are simply giving an enormous push to the inevitable for the license fee.
Comments
But if the former is true then the process of reform should naturally be driven by the BBC, not the Government.
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.
What is normal has evolved. Riding on cart and horse used to be normal, its not anymore.
Conservative party risks losing voters if it continues 'vendetta' against the BBC, senior Tories warn
"Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Merriman says it is “worrying” that senior Government aides appear to be “ramping up an unedifying vendetta” against the broadcaster.
Damian Green, the Former Cabinet minister, said: “Destroying the BBC wasn’t in our manifesto and would be cultural vandalism”."
Good luck Tory MPs with Cummings and his mad schemes.
Wait until Radio 2 listeners find out...
On election night you could tune in to results on BBC, Sky News, ITV, Channel 4, YouTube, countless websites and however much else. The BBC is simply not that important anymore - the content it produces can be but how the content is broadcast is not.
Ditto for protected (and even unprotected) sporting events. I watched last years Champions League Final on YouTube. That's not "protected" but it works. What is "protected" in sport is not the broadcaster, its the content.
TVs come with On Demand as standard now.
see also
https://web.archive.org/web/20200103220914/https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/the-left-is-heading-for-a-reckoning-with-the-new-genetics/
And as a Republican, I don't bother with Royal drivel
TVs have evolved over time. Colour, digital, HD and on demand are all perfectly normal TV in 2020.
Why get hung up on what happens to be broadcast now as opposed to what was broadcast 10 minutes, 25 minutes, hours, days, or years ago?
Is there a distinction between streaming a live program that you're joining 20 minutes after its broadcast started and you select an option to view it from the start . . . or a live program you started when it started broadcasting and you pressed pause for 20 minutes?
TV has evolved. Broadcast is just one of many mechanisms to get the video and sound to your device. If you mean live broadcast say live broadcast not "normal" but even then you can stream live broadcasts so what difference does it make?
Would it be too cynical to think that if the Beeb had been an enthusiastic supporter of Brexit and the Tories, especially Boris, these past few years, we probably would not be having this debate right now?
You've made that point 47 times today
Good night and all the best.
If the BBC hadn't put Farage on TV at every opportunity they could think of, then Brexit would never have happened.
We know selective breeding works for other animals - the entire bloodstock industry would not exist without it. So why would you assume that it doesn't work for humans?
I thought the difference between a caucus and a primary was that at a caucus everyone went to the same meeting and voted in person (and without secrecy) at the same time.
How does that happen early?
Sense really has broken out if Mason is phoning for Kier.
"At the early vote site, voters will receive a voter card and fill out a paper ballot, both of which will have an identification number that correlates the two items.
After filling out the ballot with their preferences, voters will return both the voter card and the ballot to a designated ballot box."
At least there would be an actual Opposition, rather than a Hamas roadshow.
Proponents of Lamarckism (such as Trofim Lysenko) have done truly huge amounts of damage -- way, way more than Sir Cyril.
Lysenko was a real criminal, who ensured his enemies died in concentration camps so that he could propagate a pseudo-scientific theory about genetics.
Burt was just a fraud (probably).
Rebecca Long-Bailey says she would put Jeremy Corbyn in her Cabinet as calls are made for the out-going Labour leader to be shadow foreign secretary
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8010497/Rebecca-Long-Bailey-says-Jeremy-Corbyn-Cabinet.html
Like never? Not even on say Cup Final day or new series of Dr Who or whatever?
Now people in different buildings at work are listening to a mix of Radio 1 (da youth), various commercial radio, or nothing (my office). Work's new van now connects to bluetooth, so I listen to music I actually like via Spotify if I'm out and about.
I would have paid a modest sub for the old radio 2 (say £20 a year - IIRC it cost a fraction of that per current listener), no way I'd pay for it now.
@JohnRentoul
·
6h
“The last 11 elections have been: loss, loss, loss, loss, Blair, Blair, Blair, loss, loss, loss, loss”
@Andrew_Adonis
Is a majority in favour of the radical aims of reform? Probably not, but how many are in favour sufficiently to prevent it from happening? Same problem as the UK union.
You are selling an -ism. What you have stated is the very definition of Lamarckism -- acquired characteristics can be inherited.
You may not be directing a promo for Lysenko, but you are singing in the backup band.
It emphasises that Starmer is seeking radical change in the face of efforts to paint him as the establishment candidate. It is also uncannily similar to the "Another Europe is Possible" organisation which was quite prominent on the left in campaigning in favour of the EU from a far left perspective. That's no coincidence. For now, Starmer is targeting the votes of those on the far left who are conflicted by Momentum's claim that Labour lost because the party went too far towards a Remain position.
I wasn't around 40 years ago but 20 years ago the debate was licence fee v advertising (like ITV).
Its different now though. How many people 20 or 40 years ago would have honestly said "I don't watch the BBC why should I pay for it?" Now there are people who watch live TV but watch little to no BBC, something that was unthinkable even in recent the past.
There are growing numbers of people who genuinely don't use and thus don't care about the BBC.
The BBC licence fee debate is similar. Some people have objected to it for years, public and political opinion has washed backwards and forwards, but now we appear to have hit a "perfect storm" tipping point, where the government is license fee skeptic, the public isn't over bothered, and technology is making the whole license fee concept an anachronism. It doesn't seem surprising that its likely to be gone in the next 5 years.
It is alway wise to be very suspicious of Lamarckism or Lamarckists.
Many people find Lamarckism satisfying for political or religious religions. Including many admirable people, like GB Shaw or WB Yeats.
Many people find Darwinism too nihilistic, again for political or religious reasons.
It is older people who are by and larger Eurosceptics. It is older people who watch TV and (perhaps) remember the BBC fondly.
The BBC is actually in worse trouble than the Europhiles. Demographics may eventually reverse the referendum result of 2016, but it won't ever help the BBC.
Age demographics are simply giving an enormous push to the inevitable for the license fee.