Stateside, though, I despise Trump and all things Trump to such an extent that if Nov 3rd goes as I think it will - a thumping loss for him - I will be punching the ceiling and making odd guttural sounds and all of that.
And in this case - unlike (say) GE19 over here - I have my betting aligned with my preferred outcome, i.e. what I expect to happen is the same as what I want to happen. Which will be quite nice (touch wood!).
The danger always referenced is that people bet on what they want to happen, but what you want should always be irrelevant. And that doesn't mean backing what you don't want to happen as frequently gets pushed. Bet where the evidence is, and the evidence as I see it points to Trump losing in November.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
The NHS is a universal service, like the Police or fire brigade.
The BBC is not.
Can you not see the difference?
What are you arguing here? Are you physically unable to recalibrate to what is being said?
I am saying you are comparing apples to tadpoles.
Your analogy is completely flawed. They're not the same thing.
They are the same thing. They are both examples of the state compelling the individual to contribute towards a service they perhaps do not want to use.
There's an absolute tonne of possible paths for Biden. Perhaps Maine would be in play if the GOP were on the up this time round perhaps, but I don't think Biden will lose any Clinton states.
I think he'll take the Rust Belt AND the Sun Belt route. Spelling landslide.
But people know what I think. If I'm wrong it will be a very large slice of pie of the most humble variety.
One of us is going to be having lashings of humble pie November Kinablu....:)
@Philip_Thompson you are trying to argue that ideologically the concept of the “BBC” is different to the “NHS” or the Police. It isn’t.
What you are simply saying is that the NHS and the Police are worthwhile enough for the state to compel people to contribute towards them under threat of violence and therefore restricting individual liberty.
And I agree with you.
This “universal” dead-end is just that. A complete irrelevance.
I am saying both.
Maybe 50 years ago when the only way to get entertainment broadcast was to do so collectively then it was justified to pay collectively to do so. That's not been true for decades.
The BBC is both not important enough to justify general taxation nor universal enough to justify compulsion.
Yes, and I agree that perhaps the BBC can be no longer be considered important enough to justify the compellance. I also agree that the NHS and the Police etc are far more important, and thus the restriction on individual liberty is justified.
But the point remains they are still restrictions on individual liberty. You are tempering your belief in a “small state” because you can justify their importance. That is a question of degree.
Public sector broadcasting is a public good, like a comprehensive health system and education for under 18s.
The argument is perhaps the scale of the BBC versus the truly “public sector broadcasting” part.
It does not help that the BBC itself seems to have only a fuzzy idea of what public sector broadcasting is; it has lost confidence in itself - this problem seems to go back to the Blair years...
This is a good point, if you look at the BBC website it’s a mix of news, current affairs and magazine features that wouldn’t look out of place in a commercial publication. It’s all over the place. It’s the same with the TV channels.
Of course you could argue a genuine public service exists in BBC local radio for example.
There really is little appetite for local,TV channels. The local channels that were the brainchild of the Cameron regime have not been a great success. Very few people are interested.
But BBC1 is just a commercial channel in all but name with a different model of fundjng.
The BBC if it wishes to exist as a commercial entity as it does now should seek funding elsewhere and not expect a poll tax on TVs to fund it.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
I like your definition of liberal. Sums me up pretty well. But I don’t trust that the Lib Dem’s have liberal instincts - I think they are fundamentally the SDP underneath
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I wish I shared Rochdale's view about the grip of the left on the Labour party. Unfortunately I think we're going to be out in the wilderness for quite some time. I think many of the people who got into leftist politics in the last four years haven't yet developed the grit to deal with spending most of their time out of power, out of party-political influence and out of mainstream attention. Hopefully we'll adapt to the new reality soon and find ways to be productive outside of electoral politics, until we can find a way back in.
My sense of things broadly accords with this. I fear we could be marching back to tinkerism. Nevertheless I would like to win the next election and I think it's crucial that we do. A 5th defeat in a row - especially if it comes against a backdrop of poor economic performance (which I think is inevitable) - would make me start to question the purpose of the party.
I'd prefer Starmer's Labour to win the next election, and I'd prefer Biden to win in the US. Neither prospect fills me with much excitement though.
I get you.
Stateside, though, I despise Trump and all things Trump to such an extent that if Nov 3rd goes as I think it will - a thumping loss for him - I will be punching the ceiling and making odd guttural sounds and all of that.
And in this case - unlike (say) GE19 over here - I have my betting aligned with my preferred outcome, i.e. what I expect to happen is the same as what I want to happen. Which will be quite nice (touch wood!).
Give us this day unexciting politicians. Can they just please be considered, not driven by dogma and above all competent at what they have been elected to do, please Lord. Amen.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
The NHS is a universal service, like the Police or fire brigade.
The BBC is not.
Can you not see the difference?
What are you arguing here? Are you physically unable to recalibrate to what is being said?
I am saying you are comparing apples to tadpoles.
Your analogy is completely flawed. They're not the same thing.
They are the same thing. They are both examples of the state compelling the individual to contribute towards a service they perhaps do not want to use.
The BBC is not a service.
I agree with you mostly,on this matter but the BBC does provide a service,
@Philip_Thompson you are trying to argue that ideologically the concept of the “BBC” is different to the “NHS” or the Police. It isn’t.
What you are simply saying is that the NHS and the Police are worthwhile enough for the state to compel people to contribute towards them under threat of violence and therefore restricting individual liberty.
And I agree with you.
This “universal” dead-end is just that. A complete irrelevance.
I am saying both.
Maybe 50 years ago when the only way to get entertainment broadcast was to do so collectively then it was justified to pay collectively to do so. That's not been true for decades.
The BBC is both not important enough to justify general taxation nor universal enough to justify compulsion.
Yes, and I agree that perhaps the BBC can be no longer be considered important enough to justify the compellance. I also agree that the NHS and the Police etc are far more important, and thus the restriction on individual liberty is justified.
But the point remains they are still restrictions on individual liberty. You are tempering your belief in a “small state” because you can justify their importance. That is a question of degree.
I'm not an anarchist.
There are times individual liberty needs to be restricted and don't let intellectual perfection stand in the way of compromises that are needed sometimes.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
I like your definition of liberal. Sums me up pretty well. But I don’t trust that the Lib Dem’s have liberal instincts - I think they are fundamentally the SDP underneath
Yes, I`m I `m with you, i`ve argued before (as Stodge also has) that the rot started with the SDP merger.
WTF? Neither the NHS nor the BBC license fee are liberal concepts, there's a reason both were brought in under the post-war Labour government and not before.
The license fee was brought in in 1923. It was extended to TVs in 1946 when TV broadcasting resumed after World War Two. As there were only around 7,000 TVs in 1939, there is a reason nobody had bothered with licensing fees for TV before then!
And the NHS was devised by William Beveridge, who was a Liberal MP, working for the National Government of Winston Churchill in 1943. Admittedly the concept of ‘no insurance payments’ was Bevan’s own contribution, but he admitted he had very mixed motives for introducing it.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
The acid test for me is this: do you see the unit of importance as the individual or the collective?
Listen to collectivists speak. Corbyn is a prime example. He struggles to utter sentence without the word "community" being in it. Liberals recoil at this.
Then I am not a collectivist! It's all about the individual *and* the community, recognising that the individual cannot succeed on their own, and that the community cannot thrive unless everyone within it has the freedom to flourish. It is not either-or, it is both.
Hardly a strong start though, a scantily clad woman on the front, an extremely wealthy one, plugging her range of undies. One up,for the sisterhood that.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I like your moniker. An allusion to liberal philosopher John Rawls?
@Philip_Thompson you are trying to argue that ideologically the concept of the “BBC” is different to the “NHS” or the Police. It isn’t.
What you are simply saying is that the NHS and the Police are worthwhile enough for the state to compel people to contribute towards them under threat of violence and therefore restricting individual liberty.
And I agree with you.
This “universal” dead-end is just that. A complete irrelevance.
I am saying both.
Maybe 50 years ago when the only way to get entertainment broadcast was to do so collectively then it was justified to pay collectively to do so. That's not been true for decades.
The BBC is both not important enough to justify general taxation nor universal enough to justify compulsion.
Yes, and I agree that perhaps the BBC can be no longer be considered important enough to justify the compellance. I also agree that the NHS and the Police etc are far more important, and thus the restriction on individual liberty is justified.
But the point remains they are still restrictions on individual liberty. You are tempering your belief in a “small state” because you can justify their importance. That is a question of degree.
I'm not an anarchist.
There are times individual liberty needs to be restricted and don't let intellectual perfection stand in the way of compromises that are needed sometimes.
I didn’t say you were an anarchist. I’m saying that those “compromises” are subjective and the argument is simply whether you believe they are important enough to be justified.
To some people your support of the NHS would be considered a “big state” endeavour, especially in the United States.
Public sector broadcasting is a public good, like a comprehensive health system and education for under 18s.
The argument is perhaps the scale of the BBC versus the truly “public sector broadcasting” part.
It does not help that the BBC itself seems to have only a fuzzy idea of what public sector broadcasting is; it has lost confidence in itself - this problem seems to go back to the Blair years...
This is a good point, if you look at the BBC website it’s a mix of news, current affairs and magazine features that wouldn’t look out of place in a commercial publication. It’s all over the place. It’s the same with the TV channels.
Of course you could argue a genuine public service exists in BBC local radio for example.
You could, until you listen to it. It's like one of those digital "plus one" timeshift channels. In this case, BBC Local Radio gives you the chance to listen to Radio 2 from twenty years ago in case you missed it.
(Slightly unfair in that there are a few BBC LR stations which do genuine local journalism - BBC WM has always been good, for example. But the vast majority are just a tacky phone-in, some travel news, and "Now here's 'Hocus Pocus' by Focus!")
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
The NHS is a universal service, like the Police or fire brigade.
The BBC is not.
Can you not see the difference?
What are you arguing here? Are you physically unable to recalibrate to what is being said?
I am saying you are comparing apples to tadpoles.
Your analogy is completely flawed. They're not the same thing.
They are the same thing. They are both examples of the state compelling the individual to contribute towards a service they perhaps do not want to use.
The BBC is not a service.
The great thing about knowing you are always on here Philip is that I know whenever I log on, there is a high chance you will have written some complete bollocks that I can heartily laugh at for its intellectual vacuity. That is one of your best.
Her first front page features a young woman in her underwear.
Okaaayyyyyy...
To misquote Harriet Harman, ‘this is not what a feminist looks like.’
To be fair, every new editor fouls up the cover for their first few issues (speaking as someone who used to edit magazines and was just as guilty). Geordie Greig took a while to get the hang of the Mail cover, even though he'd edited the Standard and the MoS before.
@Philip_Thompson you are trying to argue that ideologically the concept of the “BBC” is different to the “NHS” or the Police. It isn’t.
What you are simply saying is that the NHS and the Police are worthwhile enough for the state to compel people to contribute towards them under threat of violence and therefore restricting individual liberty.
And I agree with you.
This “universal” dead-end is just that. A complete irrelevance.
I am saying both.
Maybe 50 years ago when the only way to get entertainment broadcast was to do so collectively then it was justified to pay collectively to do so. That's not been true for decades.
The BBC is both not important enough to justify general taxation nor universal enough to justify compulsion.
Yes, and I agree that perhaps the BBC can be no longer be considered important enough to justify the compellance. I also agree that the NHS and the Police etc are far more important, and thus the restriction on individual liberty is justified.
But the point remains they are still restrictions on individual liberty. You are tempering your belief in a “small state” because you can justify their importance. That is a question of degree.
I'm not an anarchist.
There are times individual liberty needs to be restricted and don't let intellectual perfection stand in the way of compromises that are needed sometimes.
I didn’t say you were an anarchist. I’m saying that those “compromises” are subjective and the argument is simply whether you believe they are important enough to be justified.
To some people your support of the NHS would be considered a “big state” endeavour, especially in the United States.
It would indeed. Except that Americans pay more per capita via taxes alone to healthcare than we Brits do.
So until an American can explain why their state needs more money per capita than ours do I don't care what they have to say.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To be clear, l do regard a safety net for all as essential in a civilised country and argue that this is a part of liberalism as it is an essential contribtuon to positive freedom.
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
The LDs have actually won many Labour seats in recent decades - Bermondsey - Brent East - Leicester South - Hornsey & Wood Green - Burnley - Redcar - Birmingham Yardley - Manchester Withington - Leeds NW - to name but a few.
Couldn't get Hallam back even with Corbyn in charge. The middle class Labour vote is bigger than ever.
Think Hallam could well become a safe Labour seat now. It's exactly the sort of constituency you'd think Starmer would be very popular in.
That's what I think will happen, I called on here Hallam to be a Labour hold at the GE last November.
I think Brexit has put an end to the Tories gaining the seat but in the future say after 10 years of a Labour government it could also to the blue meanies.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To roughly quote Mrs T, the problem with socialism is that they (socialists) always run out of other peoples' money. This may yet prove to be the problem with Johnsonian populism too.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To roughly quote Mrs T, the problem with socialism is that they (socialists) always run out of other peoples' money. This may yet prove to be the problem with Johnsonian populism too.
I wouldn`t get too carried away with the economic aspects of "Johnsonian populism". Whatever the Conservatives spend - even in their current guise - Labour would always have spent more.
Public sector broadcasting is a public good, like a comprehensive health system and education for under 18s.
The argument is perhaps the scale of the BBC versus the truly “public sector broadcasting” part.
It does not help that the BBC itself seems to have only a fuzzy idea of what public sector broadcasting is; it has lost confidence in itself - this problem seems to go back to the Blair years...
This is a good point, if you look at the BBC website it’s a mix of news, current affairs and magazine features that wouldn’t look out of place in a commercial publication. It’s all over the place. It’s the same with the TV channels.
Of course you could argue a genuine public service exists in BBC local radio for example.
You could, until you listen to it. It's like one of those digital "plus one" timeshift channels. In this case, BBC Local Radio gives you the chance to listen to Radio 2 from twenty years ago in case you missed it.
(Slightly unfair in that there are a few BBC LR stations which do genuine local journalism - BBC WM has always been good, for example. But the vast majority are just a tacky phone-in, some travel news, and "Now here's 'Hocus Pocus' by Focus!")
Well, apart from Hocus Pocus by Focus that sounds disappointing and not really living up to a local service remit unless ‘Speak your Brains’ phone ins are counted as local services.
That's pretty poor for Labour after months of Boris and Dom completely fucking up in the virus and everything else.
Agreed. I’m beginning to wonder if I (and in fairness many others) have been over-rating Keir Starmer? Compared to Corbyn he’s a superstar, but in absolute terms he’s still pretty mediocre.
That Lib Dem figure of 6 MPs is truly horrific: Baxter predicts them losing all 4 of their Scottish MPs. And yet another SCon wipeout (-6). The only non-SNP MP would be Ian Murray in my “home” constituency of Edinburgh South.
Unlikely in reality - the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland and - probably - Farron's seat in Cumbria to leave them with 8.
That's probably correct. Farron's seat is a bit of an odd one even though it voted remain and I wouldn't have been shocked if he'd lost it in 2019 but he may have ridden out the danger now.
I'm not sure about Orkney and Shetland due to the local politics that goes on there, in some ways I think Edinburgh West is actually more secure for the lib Dems.
Farron's seat will be altered beyond recognition in the boundary review. Cumbria is likely to lose a seat, or at very least a half of one. Meaning big changes in which W+L, if it survives at all will get much bigger. And as it is completely surrounded by strongly Tory areas it is going to be very difficult for him unless there is a big nationwide movement to the LDs.
Yes, realistically the LDs could be down to 8 after the boundary review.
Caithness is massively undersized. While the commission have traditionally allowed smaller seats in the Highlands due to the large land area, the Inverness seat is slightly oversized. Caithness could take Dingwall and Black Isle, which would fix it numbers wise without adding much in the way of land area. Ross etc could then take Loch Ness and Badenoch from the Inverness seat
Fife NE is also undersized and has no excuse. It will likely take the rest of the split Leven etc ward from Glenrothes
Westmorland as mentioned is likely to see part going in with Morecambe while gaining some of Penrith as compensation
The one the LDs could gain is Cheltenham, which is oversized depending on which ward is chopped off.
I haven't seen much of Layla Moran so far, except when she was asking a question via videolink in parliament. As I have used an autocue a few times, it became apparent to me that was what she was doing when asking her question. It didn't impress me much. Asking a very long question without pause or glance to notes with no change in rhythm is a bit of a give away cheat!
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we know the answer to that the answer of who they should choose to lead them may become a little clearer.
For me, Liberal Democrats reflect at their best a healthy scepticism of the world. So they like a helping State but are suspicious of an overpowering state. They like personal freedom but they also respect the rights of others not to be insulted or hurt (arguably too much so). They don't like austerity but they are not keen on debt either being willing to have higher taxes than the Tories to bridge the difference. They like localism and have a general preference for bottom up than top down solutions. They don't like dogma or fixed positions being more pragmatic in their approach (the EU arguably being an exception to a few of these positions). They like internationalism and international co-operation (which in fairness their EU position was consistent with).
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
The LDs have actually won many Labour seats in recent decades - Bermondsey - Brent East - Leicester South - Hornsey & Wood Green - Burnley - Redcar - Birmingham Yardley - Manchester Withington - Leeds NW - to name but a few.
Couldn't get Hallam back even with Corbyn in charge. The middle class Labour vote is bigger than ever.
Most of those Labour seats the LDs gained were when Lab was in government. The strategy for a party like the LDs should be to target Con seats when Con is government and Lab seats when Lab is in government.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
Doesn't liberal mean, 80% of the time, "people like me"?
People can have a tendency to use it to mean 'good'
Certainly the opposite - illiberal - is ALWAYS used in a negative sense.
Yes you are right. A shame. The word "liberal" should no more be used in a positive or negative sense than any other ideological tag.
I believe that ideologies are innate. I cannot decide to wake up tomorrow as a collectivist or next week as a conservative. Liberalism is just "in me".
Innate as in born with? I don't believe that. For me it comes from a mix of thinking and feeling and is impacted by life experience. But once formed you tend to resist changes to the thinking and the feeling and any further experience does not play as big a role as arguably it should (or as people like to pretend it does). So if you are ideologically inclined (which most aren't) you get "set" at (say) 16 - maybe a bit later -and that is more or less it. Some refinements, going forward, but usually no more than this. And going back to thinking and feeling - by which I mean IQ vs EQ - these can be out of alignment. Myself, for example, I am emotionally quite right of centre - I get a warm feeling about tradition, grand country houses, consumerism, opulent lifestyles, rags to riches stories, people making it BIG, the romantic notion that you can do anything if you set your mind to it, the sheer colour and dynamism of a chaotic free for all - but intellectually all this doesn't work for me because it seems an absurd way to carry on and produces vastly more losers than winners. It's all so illogical. And I go with that side of me. Hard Left Social Democrat, probably "collectivist" cum "liberal" in your syntax.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we know the answer to that the answer of who they should choose to lead them may become a little clearer.
For me, Liberal Democrats reflect at their best a healthy scepticism of the world. So they like a helping State but are suspicious of an overpowering state. They like personal freedom but they also respect the rights of others not to be insulted or hurt (arguably too much so). They don't like austerity but they are not keen on debt either being willing to have higher taxes than the Tories to bridge the difference. They like localism and have a general preference for bottom up than top down solutions. They don't like dogma or fixed positions being more pragmatic in their approach (the EU arguably being an exception to a few of these positions). They like internationalism and international co-operation (which in fairness their EU position was consistent with).
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
Labour under "Sir Kneel" as you cringingly call him is an absolute opportunity for them. Traditional moderate Tories like myself will feel very happy lending our vote to the LDs when the worst that can happen is a Labour government under the premiership of someone that looks and sounds professional. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but if I have to pay that price to rid the Conservative Party of the cancerous affliction of Johnson and Cummings that is a price worth paying.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
It is fundamentally illiberal to oblige people to pay for a liberal endeavour that they don't want, especially when it is not universal and there are so many alternatives in this day and age.
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
The same argument can be said about the NHS. You pay for it even if you don’t use it.
You are essentially picking and choosing what is “liberal” because you have a vendetta against the BBC.
The NHS is about life and death. The BBC is about whether you want to watch Gary Lineker.
The BBC is not a "common good" and is frankly a bit pants.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
The BBC is like having to pay a membership fee to Waitrose before you are allowed to go shopping elsewhere - even if you want to go shopping in Aldi.
The NHS is like having to pay a membership fee to Lidl before you go shopping at Waitrose away from the plebs. Whether or not its “universal” is irrelevant to that.
Without the NHS people who could not afford healthcare would suffer and die.
Without the BBC people would have a slightly less wide choice of which TV channel to watch.
Yes I know. Thanks for your irrelevant contribution.
I wish people would thank me for my irrelevant contributions, otherwise I assume all mine are very relevant.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To roughly quote Mrs T, the problem with socialism is that they (socialists) always run out of other peoples' money. This may yet prove to be the problem with Johnsonian populism too.
It's a major issue with many forms of socialism, I agree.
But where socialism has produced arguably the most successful political systems in the world (the Scandinavian countries) its opponents get around this inconvenient fact by pretending that it isn't really socialism.
In this, they are aided by many socialists who disown the Scandinavian model for its lack of ideological purity. So maybe the problem with socialism is socialists, just as the real problem with liberalism is liberals, and the problem with conservatism is conservatives. But of the three, socialists are the only ones who disown their own success stories!
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
The LDs have actually won many Labour seats in recent decades - Bermondsey - Brent East - Leicester South - Hornsey & Wood Green - Burnley - Redcar - Birmingham Yardley - Manchester Withington - Leeds NW - to name but a few.
Couldn't get Hallam back even with Corbyn in charge. The middle class Labour vote is bigger than ever.
Think Hallam could well become a safe Labour seat now. It's exactly the sort of constituency you'd think Starmer would be very popular in.
That's what I think will happen, I called on here Hallam to be a Labour hold at the GE last November.
I think Brexit has put an end to the Tories gaining the seat but in the future say after 10 years of a Labour government it could also to the blue meanies.
If Omaras tenure didnt ruin labour there nothing will.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we know the answer to that the answer of who they should choose to lead them may become a little clearer.
For me, Liberal Democrats reflect at their best a healthy scepticism of the world. So they like a helping State but are suspicious of an overpowering state. They like personal freedom but they also respect the rights of others not to be insulted or hurt (arguably too much so). They don't like austerity but they are not keen on debt either being willing to have higher taxes than the Tories to bridge the difference. They like localism and have a general preference for bottom up than top down solutions. They don't like dogma or fixed positions being more pragmatic in their approach (the EU arguably being an exception to a few of these positions). They like internationalism and international co-operation (which in fairness their EU position was consistent with).
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
I maintain that the reason that the tuition fee debacle hurt the lib dems so much is because fundamentally what a lot of people are asking themselves about politicians is "who's on my side?". With the tuition fee pledge, suddenly a whole lot of people (students, recent graduates, parents, etc.) felt that the lib dems were the answer to that question. When they U-turned, those people realised the truth: that the lib dems aren't on anyone's side. Much like your description above, their view of the world ignores the concept of people having conflicting interests or values, or taking a side in those conflicts.
It's no coincidence that their pseudo-comeback was over Brexit, where they again had a large group of people for whom they were the party on their side. And this time we could sense they really meant it- it wasn't just a manifesto promise they could weasel out of, the lib dems were Remainers to their bones (not every member, but on the whole). But with the Remain/Leave argument now in the rear view mirror, hurtling rapidly out of view, they are once again in the position of not having an answer to whose side they're on. I don't see any way back for them until they can change that.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we know the answer to that the answer of who they should choose to lead them may become a little clearer.
For me, Liberal Democrats reflect at their best a healthy scepticism of the world. So they like a helping State but are suspicious of an overpowering state. They like personal freedom but they also respect the rights of others not to be insulted or hurt (arguably too much so). They don't like austerity but they are not keen on debt either being willing to have higher taxes than the Tories to bridge the difference. They like localism and have a general preference for bottom up than top down solutions. They don't like dogma or fixed positions being more pragmatic in their approach (the EU arguably being an exception to a few of these positions). They like internationalism and international co-operation (which in fairness their EU position was consistent with).
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
You are a natural lib dem, you would be at home in the party. In many ways they (we) are the non political political party which is why Moran grates on many members. You don’t join the lib dems expecting power and influence and if it comes you seek to give it away to those that elected you.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
The LDs have actually won many Labour seats in recent decades - Bermondsey - Brent East - Leicester South - Hornsey & Wood Green - Burnley - Redcar - Birmingham Yardley - Manchester Withington - Leeds NW - to name but a few.
Couldn't get Hallam back even with Corbyn in charge. The middle class Labour vote is bigger than ever.
Think Hallam could well become a safe Labour seat now. It's exactly the sort of constituency you'd think Starmer would be very popular in.
That's what I think will happen, I called on here Hallam to be a Labour hold at the GE last November.
I think Brexit has put an end to the Tories gaining the seat but in the future say after 10 years of a Labour government it could also to the blue meanies.
If Omaras tenure didnt ruin labour there nothing will.
Richard Burgon succeeding SKS as Labour leader might.
Thats nice. A shame if not much happens in practice but at least they are firm.
Of course, nations breaking agreements when they feel able to is as old as nations (far older in fact), but that China didnt even make it halfway on the HK agreement before they felt comfortable doing this is depressing.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To be clear, l do regard a safety net for all as essential in a civilised country and argue that this is a part of liberalism as it is an essential contribtuon to positive freedom.
Okay, I apologise. You didn't specify that in your definition of liberalism, but nor did you specify the opposite. I should have made that clear.
I have to note @Philip_Thompson I agree there are compelling reasons for perhaps getting rid of the license fee, however I feel you are trying to justify it in an intellectually dishonest way.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “liberalism”.
The Licence Fee does not pay for TV in the 21st Century.
Lets say I want to watch The Big Bang Theory on TV. It is a TV show on TV and if I wish to watch that being broadcast live on TV then I must pay the Licence Fee to watch it.
On which BBC Channel can I find it?
You’re moving the goal posts for absolutely no reason.
I can access cutting-edge medicine privately that is not available in the NHS. I am forced to pay for the NHS but yet I can’t access this hypothetical treatment under it.
Likewise your pointless Big Bang Theory analogy. I can access perhaps a less-good sitcom on the BBC.
This is the year 2020. We have hundreds or thousands of entertainment options. Non-BBC entertainment is neither niche nor cutting-edge.
Your "less-good sitcom on the BBC" is one entertainment option of many. Why should we be compelled for one entertainment choice of many?
I haven't paid the licence fee since the digital switchover and I don't need to because I don't watch "as-live" broadcasts or [since a later change] iPlayer.
I pay Netflix cash to watch Big Bang Theory (and other stuff) and temporarily paid for NowTV to watch Game of Thrones.
When you pay your Sky Sports subscription to watch live football you have to pay a tax, VAT, in addition. I see nothing wrong, in principle, with also charging a hypothecated watching-live-TV tax that is used to fund the BBC.
Obviously, like all taxes, there is a tension between people who want to pay less tax, and will accept a worse service in exchange, or those who want a better service and are willing to pay more tax for that.
It is interesting that lefties are generally supportive of this flat-rate tax, though. Maybe there are other ways to fund the BBC that are more progressive? An additional % on VAT for TV subscriptions? A per-inch tax on TVs? A digital advertising tax?
I think that finding a way to get rid of a flat-rate tax, the conviction of working class people for non-payment, the pointless bureaucracy of TV Licensing and still secure the funding of the BBC for the long term could be a real win. It's an example of where the Left could demonstrate modern thinking and break out of the defensive struggles it's been fighting for 40 years.
i can see LGBTQ+ fracturing, as well, under the pressure of the TERF wars.
Probably for the best, as it on the verge of absurdity and total forgetability already
My issue with the increasing LGBTIQ+ is not absurdity, just that's its unpronounceable as a word, but now so long its unwieldy as an acronym. I'm sure an alternative term being all encompassing would be hard and controversial but it's getting clunky.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we know the answer to that the answer of who they should choose to lead them may become a little clearer.
For me, Liberal Democrats reflect at their best a healthy scepticism of the world. So they like a helping State but are suspicious of an overpowering state. They like personal freedom but they also respect the rights of others not to be insulted or hurt (arguably too much so). They don't like austerity but they are not keen on debt either being willing to have higher taxes than the Tories to bridge the difference. They like localism and have a general preference for bottom up than top down solutions. They don't like dogma or fixed positions being more pragmatic in their approach (the EU arguably being an exception to a few of these positions). They like internationalism and international co-operation (which in fairness their EU position was consistent with).
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
You are a natural lib dem, you would be at home in the party. In many ways they (we) are the non political political party which is why Moran grates on many members. You don’t join the lib dems expecting power and influence and if it comes you seek to give it away to those that elected you.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
Netflix is £5.99 but then how many of your categories do you think it covers? You seem to be implying it only covers one for some reason.
Thats without considering the fact it covers many of those categories an order of magnitude better than the BBC does, because that's a very subjective debate but you seem to be trying to argue different categories matter without saying which categories justify the BBC charging nearly three times the price.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
Conservatism is the absence of an ideology. We can't include that!
I am a bit liberal in fact - pls last post see where I have a go at "doing" me.
As for that "woke" exchange, I was trying to reclaim the word. Define it as somebody who is rather than let it be defined by people who aren't.
And if you want to see what society would look & feel like if the "antiwokes" were to prevail, check out this site after 8 pm of an evening. It's not pretty. It goes very very golf club.
Not impressed. Not especially appealing to liberalism there!
In most rural areas and many market and spa towns and a few posh areas of London the LDs, not Labour are the main centre left alternative to the Tories.
Davey is more traditional liberal than Moran but he is still centre left
I have to note @Philip_Thompson I agree there are compelling reasons for perhaps getting rid of the license fee, however I feel you are trying to justify it in an intellectually dishonest way.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “liberalism”.
The Licence Fee does not pay for TV in the 21st Century.
Lets say I want to watch The Big Bang Theory on TV. It is a TV show on TV and if I wish to watch that being broadcast live on TV then I must pay the Licence Fee to watch it.
On which BBC Channel can I find it?
You’re moving the goal posts for absolutely no reason.
I can access cutting-edge medicine privately that is not available in the NHS. I am forced to pay for the NHS but yet I can’t access this hypothetical treatment under it.
Likewise your pointless Big Bang Theory analogy. I can access perhaps a less-good sitcom on the BBC.
This is the year 2020. We have hundreds or thousands of entertainment options. Non-BBC entertainment is neither niche nor cutting-edge.
Your "less-good sitcom on the BBC" is one entertainment option of many. Why should we be compelled for one entertainment choice of many?
I haven't paid the licence fee since the digital switchover and I don't need to because I don't watch "as-live" broadcasts or [since a later change] iPlayer.
I pay Netflix cash to watch Big Bang Theory (and other stuff) and temporarily paid for NowTV to watch Game of Thrones.
When you pay your Sky Sports subscription to watch live football you have to pay a tax, VAT, in addition. I see nothing wrong, in principle, with also charging a hypothecated watching-live-TV tax that is used to fund the BBC.
Obviously, like all taxes, there is a tension between people who want to pay less tax, and will accept a worse service in exchange, or those who want a better service and are willing to pay more tax for that.
It is interesting that lefties are generally supportive of this flat-rate tax, though. Maybe there are other ways to fund the BBC that are more progressive? An additional % on VAT for TV subscriptions? A per-inch tax on TVs? A digital advertising tax?
I think that finding a way to get rid of a flat-rate tax, the conviction of working class people for non-payment, the pointless bureaucracy of TV Licensing and still secure the funding of the BBC for the long term could be a real win. It's an example of where the Left could demonstrate modern thinking and break out of the defensive struggles it's been fighting for 40 years.
I've no objection to finding another way to fund the BBC, but it's somewhat galling when my charge goes from nothing to £150 (or thereabouts). It was nice when it went down. of course.
i can see LGBTQ+ fracturing, as well, under the pressure of the TERF wars.
Probably for the best, as it on the verge of absurdity and total forgetability already
My issue with the increasing LGBTIQ+ is not absurdity, just that's its unpronounceable as a word, but now so long its unwieldy as an acronym. I'm sure an alternative term being all encompassing would be hard and controversial but it's getting clunky.
Did I miss an "I" in LGBTQ+? What does it stand for? Intersectional? Irish Travellers in drag??
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
Conservatism is the absence of an ideology. We can't include that!
I am a bit liberal in fact - pls last post see where I have a go at "doing" me.
As for that "woke" exchange, I was trying to reclaim the word. Define it as somebody who is rather than let it be defined by people who aren't.
And if you want to see what society would look & feel like if the "antiwokes" were to prevail, check out this site after 8 pm of an evening. It's not pretty. It goes very very golf club.
You are wrong, conservativism is most definitely an ideology.
Assuming that's right on the Constantine statue, it's good news, but given the Archsocialist has been wibbling about reviewing statues and we've had mobs tearing them down to the approving inaction of the police it's not surprising the story was taken seriously.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To roughly quote Mrs T, the problem with socialism is that they (socialists) always run out of other peoples' money. This may yet prove to be the problem with Johnsonian populism too.
It's a major issue with many forms of socialism, I agree.
But where socialism has produced arguably the most successful political systems in the world (the Scandinavian countries) its opponents get around this inconvenient fact by pretending that it isn't really socialism.
In this, they are aided by many socialists who disown the Scandinavian model for its lack of ideological purity. So maybe the problem with socialism is socialists, just as the real problem with liberalism is liberals, and the problem with conservatism is conservatives. But of the three, socialists are the only ones who disown their own success stories!
Much of the Scandinavian model is built upon cooperation between employers and trade unions, to the mutual benefit of all. Ditto toothless monarchies; broad pension agreements; defence and many other cross-party compromises. But like all mutually beneficial agreements and compromises, each interested party has to give something. That’s why it wouldn’t work in England, where the end objective is to ultimately smash your opponent.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
Same here. It is most disconcerting. I should dislike him, but can`t quite manage it. I`ve told him before that he should be a politician. Maybe he is?
It often strikes me that many posters on this site would make better politicians than the crop that we currently enjoy.
I`ve love to vote for AndyCooke, Cyclefree, Nabavi, Stodge, Foxy, DavidL etc etc.
Not kinabalu though. Not quite.
I am in politics in a sense. Labour Party member. That's the coalface.
Lots of excellent posters on here. All of those named and tons of others.
I have a soft spot for @Omnium - truly impossible to get a handle on, which is always seductive.
i can see LGBTQ+ fracturing, as well, under the pressure of the TERF wars.
Probably for the best, as it on the verge of absurdity and total forgetability already
My issue with the increasing LGBTIQ+ is not absurdity, just that's its unpronounceable as a word, but now so long its unwieldy as an acronym. I'm sure an alternative term being all encompassing would be hard and controversial but it's getting clunky.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
Conservatism is the absence of an ideology. We can't include that!
I am a bit liberal in fact - pls last post see where I have a go at "doing" me.
As for that "woke" exchange, I was trying to reclaim the word. Define it as somebody who is rather than let it be defined by people who aren't.
And if you want to see what society would look & feel like if the "antiwokes" were to prevail, check out this site after 8 pm of an evening. It's not pretty. It goes very very golf club.
You are wrong, conservativism is most definitely an ideology.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To roughly quote Mrs T, the problem with socialism is that they (socialists) always run out of other peoples' money. This may yet prove to be the problem with Johnsonian populism too.
It's a major issue with many forms of socialism, I agree.
But where socialism has produced arguably the most successful political systems in the world (the Scandinavian countries) its opponents get around this inconvenient fact by pretending that it isn't really socialism.
In this, they are aided by many socialists who disown the Scandinavian model for its lack of ideological purity. So maybe the problem with socialism is socialists, just as the real problem with liberalism is liberals, and the problem with conservatism is conservatives. But of the three, socialists are the only ones who disown their own success stories!
Much of the Scandinavian model is built upon cooperation between employers and trade unions, to the mutual benefit of all. Ditto toothless monarchies; broad pension agreements; defence and many other cross-party compromises. But like all mutually beneficial agreements and compromises, each interested party has to give something. That’s why it wouldn’t work in England, where the end objective is to ultimately smash your opponent.
Cuba is socialist, Scandinavia is social democrat at most, Iceland and Norway arguably not even that
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
The BBC for all its faults is the best public broadcaster in the world . If it becomes a subscription model that will be the end of it.
The Tories have become so arrogant that they think they can get away with anything and attack any institution which dares criticize them.
The Tories strongest demographic electorally won’t take kindly to seeing the BBC destroyed . If the Tories don’t think this could become a big issue at the next election then they’re deluded .
i can see LGBTQ+ fracturing, as well, under the pressure of the TERF wars.
Probably for the best, as it on the verge of absurdity and total forgetability already
My issue with the increasing LGBTIQ+ is not absurdity, just that's its unpronounceable as a word, but now so long its unwieldy as an acronym. I'm sure an alternative term being all encompassing would be hard and controversial but it's getting clunky.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
Conservatism is the absence of an ideology. We can't include that!
I am a bit liberal in fact - pls last post see where I have a go at "doing" me.
As for that "woke" exchange, I was trying to reclaim the word. Define it as somebody who is rather than let it be defined by people who aren't.
And if you want to see what society would look & feel like if the "antiwokes" were to prevail, check out this site after 8 pm of an evening. It's not pretty. It goes very very golf club.
You are wrong, conservativism is most definitely an ideology.
I think he`s being tongue-in-cheek.
I apologise if you're right but I think he might actually believe it.
i can see LGBTQ+ fracturing, as well, under the pressure of the TERF wars.
Probably for the best, as it on the verge of absurdity and total forgetability already
My issue with the increasing LGBTIQ+ is not absurdity, just that's its unpronounceable as a word, but now so long its unwieldy as an acronym. I'm sure an alternative term being all encompassing would be hard and controversial but it's getting clunky.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
Netflix is £5.99 but then how many of your categories do you think it covers? You seem to be implying it only covers one for some reason.
Thats without considering the fact it covers many of those categories an order of magnitude better than the BBC does, because that's a very subjective debate but you seem to be trying to argue different categories matter without saying which categories justify the BBC charging nearly three times the price.
I didn't say Netflix only covers one. I said that the BBC covers more.
Of the categories I listed above, would you subscribe to any from the BBC?
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Yes, that's classical liberalism, closer to libertarianism than what is now called liberalism.
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
To roughly quote Mrs T, the problem with socialism is that they (socialists) always run out of other peoples' money. This may yet prove to be the problem with Johnsonian populism too.
It's a major issue with many forms of socialism, I agree.
But where socialism has produced arguably the most successful political systems in the world (the Scandinavian countries) its opponents get around this inconvenient fact by pretending that it isn't really socialism.
In this, they are aided by many socialists who disown the Scandinavian model for its lack of ideological purity. So maybe the problem with socialism is socialists, just as the real problem with liberalism is liberals, and the problem with conservatism is conservatives. But of the three, socialists are the only ones who disown their own success stories!
Much of the Scandinavian model is built upon cooperation between employers and trade unions, to the mutual benefit of all. Ditto toothless monarchies; broad pension agreements; defence and many other cross-party compromises. But like all mutually beneficial agreements and compromises, each interested party has to give something. That’s why it wouldn’t work in England, where the end objective is to ultimately smash your opponent.
Fair point! But of course, British adherents of a model like this also want to change our system so that the end objective is no longer to smash your opponent.
Assuming that's right on the Constantine statue, it's good news, but given the Archsocialist has been wibbling about reviewing statues and we've had mobs tearing them down to the approving inaction of the police it's not surprising the story was taken seriously.
Only because the Telegraph reporter made up a crucial part. It was a cynically constructed fabrication designed to fool gullible idiots like SeanT because it played directly towards their deeply ingrained prejudices.
can’t wait for @HYUFD to come along to tell us how great it is that he crushed the woke liberal threat and that Boris is going achieve great things with him.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
Conservatism is the absence of an ideology. We can't include that!
I am a bit liberal in fact - pls last post see where I have a go at "doing" me.
As for that "woke" exchange, I was trying to reclaim the word. Define it as somebody who is rather than let it be defined by people who aren't.
And if you want to see what society would look & feel like if the "antiwokes" were to prevail, check out this site after 8 pm of an evening. It's not pretty. It goes very very golf club.
You are wrong, conservativism is most definitely an ideology.
I like to refer to a quote from Kirk: "conservatism is the belief that we can feel most content when we live in a stable world of enduring values".
The question for all conservatives is, "which values"?
The BBC for all its faults is the best public broadcaster in the world . If it becomes a subscription model that will be the end of it.
The Tories have become so arrogant that they think they can get away with anything and attack any institution which dares criticize them.
The Tories strongest demographic electorally won’t take kindly to seeing the BBC destroyed . If the Tories don’t think this could become a big issue at the next election then they’re deluded .
I like the BBC. There are things on there which damn near justify the license fee on their own.
But it irritates the shit out of me when our State Broadcaster criticises other countries' State Broadcasters for being State Broadcasters.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
Netflix is £5.99 but then how many of your categories do you think it covers? You seem to be implying it only covers one for some reason.
Thats without considering the fact it covers many of those categories an order of magnitude better than the BBC does, because that's a very subjective debate but you seem to be trying to argue different categories matter without saying which categories justify the BBC charging nearly three times the price.
I didn't say Netflix only covers one. I said that the BBC covers more.
Of the categories I listed above, would you subscribe to any from the BBC?
Netflix doesn't charge per category though, it charges £5.99 in total for all categories - and it covers the majority of your categories.
I'm not sure what the minority of categories the BBC offers that Netflix doesn't that justifies trebling its price.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
The BBC could lose news, sport, weather and politics and no one would care that much.
The BBC for all its faults is the best public broadcaster in the world . If it becomes a subscription model that will be the end of it.
The Tories have become so arrogant that they think they can get away with anything and attack any institution which dares criticize them.
The Tories strongest demographic electorally won’t take kindly to seeing the BBC destroyed . If the Tories don’t think this could become a big issue at the next election then they’re deluded .
It might still be the best public broadcaster in the world but that's only because everyone else is abandoning the public broadcast model, and not even bothering, as the streaming networks become ever mightier.
What, really, does the BBC do uniquely well, these days?
I watch a couple of hours of TV a day, and it is nearly all streamed. I watch Netflix in the main, some Amazon Prime, a bit of stuff bought from iTunes
My consumption of BBC TV has dwindled to almost nothing. This is not a political choice, I just don't find anything there worth watching. I like Masterchef and Springwatch, and that's it.
I will turn to the BBC for big state occasions but that's a few times a year. I watch sport on Sky. And, as said below by others, the poor old website has gone from being highly informative to shallow and woke: very thin gruel.
The BBC just doesn't have a purpose any more, every single thing it does is done better by various other companies. I say this with sadness. It was a great British institution.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
The BBC could lose news, sport, weather and politics and no one would care that much.
That's literally all that differentiates it TV-wise from Netflix though.
Ultimately if the BBC is great value for money people will be prepared to pay for it from free choice. The only reason people are so horrified about the idea of it being a free choice is they're aware that many people won't find it good value for money.
Comments
Bet where the evidence is, and the evidence as I see it points to Trump losing in November.
But the point remains they are still restrictions on individual liberty. You are tempering your belief in a “small state” because you can justify their importance. That is a question of degree.
Of course you could argue a genuine public service exists in BBC local radio for example.
There really is little appetite for local,TV channels. The local channels that were the brainchild of the Cameron regime have not been a great success. Very few people are interested.
But BBC1 is just a commercial channel in all but name with a different model of fundjng.
The BBC if it wishes to exist as a commercial entity as it does now should seek funding elsewhere and not expect a poll tax on TVs to fund it.
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
There are times individual liberty needs to be restricted and don't let intellectual perfection stand in the way of compromises that are needed sometimes.
And the NHS was devised by William Beveridge, who was a Liberal MP, working for the National Government of Winston Churchill in 1943. Admittedly the concept of ‘no insurance payments’ was Bevan’s own contribution, but he admitted he had very mixed motives for introducing it.
Hardly a strong start though, a scantily clad woman on the front, an extremely wealthy one, plugging her range of undies. One up,for the sisterhood that.
To some people your support of the NHS would be considered a “big state” endeavour, especially in the United States.
(Slightly unfair in that there are a few BBC LR stations which do genuine local journalism - BBC WM has always been good, for example. But the vast majority are just a tacky phone-in, some travel news, and "Now here's 'Hocus Pocus' by Focus!")
I think you've put your finger on a large part of why I am both a liberal and a socialist. I think that socialism is the way to achieve the goals of liberalism: equality of opportunity, individual freedom within that constraint, plus a safety net for all (the latter of which Stocky did not regard as part of liberalism, but I do).
It is a very woolly sort of socialism that I think is needed for that. e.g. Scandinavian countries get a lot (not everything) right. And maybe that's why people object to the word. But it's still socialism.
Okaaayyyyyy...
To misquote Harriet Harman, ‘this is not what a feminist looks like.’
So until an American can explain why their state needs more money per capita than ours do I don't care what they have to say.
I think Brexit has put an end to the Tories gaining the seat but in the future say after 10 years of a Labour government it could also to the blue meanies.
Caithness is massively undersized. While the commission have traditionally allowed smaller seats in the Highlands due to the large land area, the Inverness seat is slightly oversized. Caithness could take Dingwall and Black Isle, which would fix it numbers wise without adding much in the way of land area. Ross etc could then take Loch Ness and Badenoch from the Inverness seat
Fife NE is also undersized and has no excuse. It will likely take the rest of the split Leven etc ward from Glenrothes
Westmorland as mentioned is likely to see part going in with Morecambe while gaining some of Penrith as compensation
The one the LDs could gain is Cheltenham, which is oversized depending on which ward is chopped off.
For me, Liberal Democrats reflect at their best a healthy scepticism of the world. So they like a helping State but are suspicious of an overpowering state. They like personal freedom but they also respect the rights of others not to be insulted or hurt (arguably too much so). They don't like austerity but they are not keen on debt either being willing to have higher taxes than the Tories to bridge the difference. They like localism and have a general preference for bottom up than top down solutions. They don't like dogma or fixed positions being more pragmatic in their approach (the EU arguably being an exception to a few of these positions). They like internationalism and international co-operation (which in fairness their EU position was consistent with).
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lib-dem-leadership_uk_5ef22378c5b601e59955a09d
This is why I'm going to vote for Ed Davey.
BAME people are going off the label "BAME". Some find it cold and patronising (and I can see their point)
In about six months "BAME" will be deemed as racist as "coloured", and it will be a sackable offence to use the term
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53194376
Bloody hell.
But where socialism has produced arguably the most successful political systems in the world (the Scandinavian countries) its opponents get around this inconvenient fact by pretending that it isn't really socialism.
In this, they are aided by many socialists who disown the Scandinavian model for its lack of ideological purity. So maybe the problem with socialism is socialists, just as the real problem with liberalism is liberals, and the problem with conservatism is conservatives. But of the three, socialists are the only ones who disown their own success stories!
https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1278281585536782337
It's no coincidence that their pseudo-comeback was over Brexit, where they again had a large group of people for whom they were the party on their side. And this time we could sense they really meant it- it wasn't just a manifesto promise they could weasel out of, the lib dems were Remainers to their bones (not every member, but on the whole). But with the Remain/Leave argument now in the rear view mirror, hurtling rapidly out of view, they are once again in the position of not having an answer to whose side they're on. I don't see any way back for them until they can change that.
Interestingly, almost all seems to be coming from the extreme progressive types.
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof)
2. Sport (regional subsets thereof)
3. Weather (regional subsets thereof)
4. Comedy
5. Drama
6. Documentaries
7. Natural History
8. Children's programmes
9. Radio (subsets thereof)
10. Politics
11. Films
12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
Probably for the best, as it on the verge of absurdity and total forgetability already
Of course, nations breaking agreements when they feel able to is as old as nations (far older in fact), but that China didnt even make it halfway on the HK agreement before they felt comfortable doing this is depressing.
I pay Netflix cash to watch Big Bang Theory (and other stuff) and temporarily paid for NowTV to watch Game of Thrones.
When you pay your Sky Sports subscription to watch live football you have to pay a tax, VAT, in addition. I see nothing wrong, in principle, with also charging a hypothecated watching-live-TV tax that is used to fund the BBC.
Obviously, like all taxes, there is a tension between people who want to pay less tax, and will accept a worse service in exchange, or those who want a better service and are willing to pay more tax for that.
It is interesting that lefties are generally supportive of this flat-rate tax, though. Maybe there are other ways to fund the BBC that are more progressive? An additional % on VAT for TV subscriptions? A per-inch tax on TVs? A digital advertising tax?
I think that finding a way to get rid of a flat-rate tax, the conviction of working class people for non-payment, the pointless bureaucracy of TV Licensing and still secure the funding of the BBC for the long term could be a real win. It's an example of where the Left could demonstrate modern thinking and break out of the defensive struggles it's been fighting for 40 years.
We might see a quaint, brief revival of the word "Afro-Caribbean", like the mod revival in the early 1980s.
You may want to re-phrase that.
Fnarr, fnarr ...
Thats without considering the fact it covers many of those categories an order of magnitude better than the BBC does, because that's a very subjective debate but you seem to be trying to argue different categories matter without saying which categories justify the BBC charging nearly three times the price.
I am a bit liberal in fact - pls last post see where I have a go at "doing" me.
As for that "woke" exchange, I was trying to reclaim the word. Define it as somebody who is rather than let it be defined by people who aren't.
And if you want to see what society would look & feel like if the "antiwokes" were to prevail, check out this site after 8 pm of an evening. It's not pretty. It goes very very golf club.
Davey is more traditional liberal than Moran but he is still centre left
https://twitter.com/CityAM/status/1278313922173403137?s=20
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1278293900835381248?s=20
https://twitter.com/iom3/status/1278316196811530242?s=20
Lots of excellent posters on here. All of those named and tons of others.
I have a soft spot for @Omnium - truly impossible to get a handle on, which is always seductive.
The Tories have become so arrogant that they think they can get away with anything and attack any institution which dares criticize them.
The Tories strongest demographic electorally won’t take kindly to seeing the BBC destroyed . If the Tories don’t think this could become a big issue at the next election then they’re deluded .
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1278317186306760705?s=20
Of the categories I listed above, would you subscribe to any from the BBC?
The question for all conservatives is, "which values"?
But it irritates the shit out of me when our State Broadcaster criticises other countries' State Broadcasters for being State Broadcasters.
I'm not sure what the minority of categories the BBC offers that Netflix doesn't that justifies trebling its price.
What, really, does the BBC do uniquely well, these days?
I watch a couple of hours of TV a day, and it is nearly all streamed. I watch Netflix in the main, some Amazon Prime, a bit of stuff bought from iTunes
My consumption of BBC TV has dwindled to almost nothing. This is not a political choice, I just don't find anything there worth watching. I like Masterchef and Springwatch, and that's it.
I will turn to the BBC for big state occasions but that's a few times a year. I watch sport on Sky. And, as said below by others, the poor old website has gone from being highly informative to shallow and woke: very thin gruel.
The BBC just doesn't have a purpose any more, every single thing it does is done better by various other companies. I say this with sadness. It was a great British institution.
Ultimately if the BBC is great value for money people will be prepared to pay for it from free choice. The only reason people are so horrified about the idea of it being a free choice is they're aware that many people won't find it good value for money.