politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest Post: Summer 2016 might lead to a generational shift

Welcome to the thread writers club Mortimer, was a pleasure to publish this.

Also agree with you on Fallon and May, especially May, she might well be the only Tory undamaged by the referendum

I should cross the Republican nomination finish line on +~£1,000, which I am very happy with .

@Pulpstar will be pleased to hear that Cruz is actually my best outcome at +£2,500 :P

If Dave goes will the Tories have their own Corbyn moment - someone from the ideologically pure eurosceptic hard-right running who somehow manages to win? Plenty will regard Cameron/Osborne centralism as a total waste of time and will be drooling for red meat. I think this could happen.

Spelling their name right in the byline might encourage guest writers to write more frequently

Charles said:

Spelling their name right in the byline might encourage guest writers to write more frequently

I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't see any mis-spellings in the byline now.

#ShouldHaveGoneToSpecSavers

@SophyRidgeSky: Sky sources: BBC will have to disclose salaries over £450,000 - @BethRigby with the details

Scott_P said:

@SophyRidgeSky: Sky sources: BBC will have to disclose salaries over £450,000 - @BethRigby with the details

So that will be the "talent" whose pay packets we already know then e.g jug ears...Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

MarqueeMark said:

Excellent first thread, Mortimer.

Interesting that perceived wisdom amongst party members is that Osborne's leadership hopes are dead in the water. Still not sure about the older Pope. The next leader is taking the party through the 2020's. May is 60 in October, 70 by 2026. That is going to feel like the Party is going backwards after the relative youth of Cameron when elected leader.

I can see a scenario where Cameron goes this year, with Gove elected as an interim leader for two years. This will be on the understanding that he will bring the party together after the Referendum - and have an extended beauty parade for the next leader to take the party into the 2020's.

Thanks for all the positive comments! This pretty much wrote itself whilst I was pondering a thread and the Chilcot announcement came out.

I'd be happy to see a decent interim followed by a beauty parade. That could allow Greg Clark to shine....

Stark_Dawning said:

If Dave goes will the Tories have their own Corbyn moment - someone from the ideologically pure eurosceptic hard-right running who somehow manages to win? Plenty will regard Cameron/Osborne centralism as a total waste of time and will be drooling for red meat. I think this could happen.

Lets hope not or its goodbye majority time. Sadly the loons have forgotten how unelectable they were/are.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Good article, Mortimer.

As regards ministerial promotions, a lot will obviously depend on the timing of any changing of the guard, and that in turn depends on the referendum. A Leave result would surely be followed by a relatively quick Cameron resignation, which wouldn't leave much time for new talent to come to prominence. If it's a Remain result, then I imagine Cameron will want to reshuffle more extensively than he has in the past, perhaps giving some of the middle-aged cardinals more of a chance, and that might mean that any leadership contest in a couple of years' time could turn out to be rather different to how things look now.

Still, as at today, I agree that Theresa May is the stand-out value.

Cameron will hold on after a Leave vote, Osborne will take the fall. The reason is that there is no obvious successor to Dave. If Boris has been auditioning for the position over the last few weeks then he is in an even worse position now than when he started before the referendum.

midwinter said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Dave goes will the Tories have their own Corbyn moment - someone from the ideologically pure eurosceptic hard-right running who somehow manages to win? Plenty will regard Cameron/Osborne centralism as a total waste of time and will be drooling for red meat. I think this could happen.

Lets hope not or its goodbye majority time. Sadly the loons have forgotten how unelectable they were/are.

There appears to be a conspiracy not to mention Boris Johnson. I can't think why...

Interesting article Mortimer.

I think the next parliament will probably see less new blood than the current one as room will have to be made for MPs displaced in the boundary review and the loss of 50 MPs overall.

On the Tory side, Cameron promised has no-one will be left behind and he will have to be seen to be sticking to this to get the changes through. In some areas this will be easier than others:

e.g. in Essex, Priti Patel's seat is likely to be the one to go but Sir Alan Haselhurst in Saffron Walden is 78 and can perhaps be persuaded to stand aside

In Devon and Cornwall it is less clear which seat is disappearing as both counties lose 1/2 seat each. Also most of the Con MPs were elected in 2010 or 2015 so will be less inclined to retire.

Another issue is Wales. Surely some of the Welsh MPs will have to be found seats in England, if Cameron is to keep his promise.

A final issue is that some MPs will end up with less safe seats (e.g. David Davis is likely to end up facing Alan Johnson in a Haltemprice and Hull W)

On the Labour side, Momentum will probably be looking at the boundary review as a chance for some "stealth" deselections. Tristram Hunt is definitely in trouble with the Potteries going from 4 to 3 Lab seats

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Good article, Mortimer.

As regards ministerial promotions, a lot will obviously depend on the timing of any changing of the guard, and that in turn depends on the referendum. A Leave result would surely be followed by a relatively quick Cameron resignation, which wouldn't leave much time for new talent to come to prominence. If it's a Remain result, then I imagine Cameron will want to reshuffle more extensively than he has in the past, perhaps giving some of the middle-aged cardinals more of a chance, and that might mean that any leadership contest in a couple of years' time could turn out to be rather different to how things look now.

Still, as at today, I agree that Theresa May is the stand-out value.

Cameron will hold on after a Leave vote, Osborne will take the fall. The reason is that there is no obvious successor to Dave. If Boris has been auditioning for the position over the last few weeks then he is in an even worse position now than when he started before the referendum.

Before mid-Feb, that strategy would have made total sense.

But Cameron has nailed himself and his colours to the mast just that little bit too firmly for most members. If his leadership is no longer viewed as an election winning vehicle, I think it will be left at the side of the road.

The political mercilessness of the Tory party when in government must not be forgotten.

Innocent_Abroad said:

midwinter said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Dave goes will the Tories have their own Corbyn moment - someone from the ideologically pure eurosceptic hard-right running who somehow manages to win? Plenty will regard Cameron/Osborne centralism as a total waste of time and will be drooling for red meat. I think this could happen.

Lets hope not or its goodbye majority time. Sadly the loons have forgotten how unelectable they were/are.

There appears to be a conspiracy not to mention Boris Johnson. I can't think why...

Just imagine an election with Corbyn leading Labour up against a (nameless) right wing (unelected) headbanger. Might even revive the Lib Dems flagging corpse......

Pulpstar said:

The most amazing thing right now is old Bernie is an implied 85% chance for the presidency should he win the nomination !

He stuffs Trump on National and swing state polling.

Once the Dem Primary is over the TRump surge will finish.

I see the West Virginia Primary was an open Primary as well so my view on who the "Democratic Primary" voters would vote for in the General is that they should be taken with a tablespoon of salt.

Pulpstar said:

The most amazing thing right now is old Bernie is an implied 85% chance for the presidency should he win the nomination !

I really want to see a Sanders for Trump thread - it's Kippers on steroids.

Did you see this? There's so many interesting angles here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-electoral-map-problem-is-not-about-trump-its-about-demographics/2016/05/08/14cdf1fc-1523-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Donald Trump’s victory last week in Indiana’s primary not only effectively sealed the GOP nomination for the real estate billionaire but also brought into sharp relief how difficult it will be for any Republican to get to 270 electoral votes and beat Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president this fall.

Start here: Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1992 and 2012. Add them up, and you get 242 electoral votes. By contrast, 13 states have voted for the Republican presidential nominee in each of the past six elections. Total them up and you get 102 electoral votes.

There are two important takeaways from these facts: The generic Democratic nominee starts with an electoral vote lead of 140, and the Democratic nominee needs to find only 28 votes beyond that reliable base to win the presidency.

PS Check your VM

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

Do you know that the BBC used to pay Sky to carry the BBC channels?

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

Do you know that the BBC pays Sky to carry the BBC channels?

They stopped paying those fees a few years ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36267052

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

Do you know that the BBC pays Sky to carry the BBC channels?

They stopped paying those fees a few years ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36267052

As my post said, I have no idea why you've clearly edited my post.

Scott_P said:

MaxPB said:

He will reshuffle to a unity Cabinet, Osborne, Javid and possibly Hammond will make way for the Leave big guns.

Can someone reconcile for me

1. Cameron will promote Leavers in a reshuffle
2. Cameron will be gone 24 hours after the vote

?

He'll do the reshuffle within 24 hours of the vote. Easy.

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

Shouldn't be a problem then...

My main issue is the licence fee can't be enforced, as it is based on the idea that everybody sits in front of moving picture box in our living room. Even this tinkering at somehow making iPlayer password protected doesn't really address this.

It reminds me of the way the record companies stuck their heads in the sand over music downloads then streaming for far too long. Holding desperately to this notion that people will still go out and buy the physical copy of their favourite music.

The pirate sites already upload HD versions of all major tv within minutes of their broadcast. One of the biggest selling devices last Christmas, the Amazon Fire Stick, and it wasn't because people wanted to watch Amazon Prime.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

Precisely. make it a subscription service and set it free.

Plato_Says said:

Pulpstar said:

Plato_Says said:

Pulpstar said:

The most amazing thing right now is old Bernie is an implied 85% chance for the presidency should he win the nomination !

I really want to see a Sanders for Trump thread - it's Kippers on steroids.

Did you see this? There's so many interesting angles here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-electoral-map-problem-is-not-about-trump-its-about-demographics/2016/05/08/14cdf1fc-1523-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

PS Check your VM

I'm a micro

Can you send me an email address? I've called you Mr P Star.

Le sent.

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

Shouldn't be a problem then...

My main issue is the licence fee can't be enforced, as it is based on the idea that everybody sits in front of moving picture box in our living room. Even this tinkering at somehow making iPlayer password protected doesn't really address this.

It reminds me of the way the record companies stuck their heads in the sand over music downloads then streaming for far too long. Holding desperately to this notion that people will still go out and buy the physical copy of their favourite music.

The pirate sites already upload HD versions of all major tv within minutes of their broadcast. One of the biggest selling devices last Christmas, the Amazon Fire Stick, and it wasn't because people wanted to watch Amazon Prime.

I am all for the BBC being subscription-based. The challenge will be in selling it to the public. The cheapest Sky package currently is £20 a month. That's around double the cost of an annual licence fee. Basically, changing the funding model to subscription will require a government to legislate to increase the cost of watching the telly. Who is going to do that?

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

Do you know that the BBC used to pay Sky to carry the BBC channels?

Yep, it was forced to.

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

Shouldn't be a problem then...

My main issue is the licence fee can't be enforced, as it is based on the idea that everybody sits in front of moving picture box in our living room. Even this tinkering at somehow making iPlayer password protected doesn't really address this.

It reminds me of the way the record companies stuck their heads in the sand over music downloads then streaming for far too long. Holding desperately to this notion that people will still go out and buy the physical copy of their favourite music.

The pirate sites already upload HD versions of all major tv within minutes of their broadcast. One of the biggest selling devices last Christmas, the Amazon Fire Stick, and it wasn't because people wanted to watch Amazon Prime.

Quite. Your music analogy is spot on. I watch stuff from everywhere.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC subscription only, Sky and Liberty can pay them carriage charges or they can take the BT Sport route and force people to sign up manually. I think the BBC could definitely survive and eventually thrive under the HBO model, but I don't think it would happen over night and neither would it be pain free, there is so much fat at the BBC that would need to be trimmed in favour of TV and radio production that thousands would need to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

The big opportunity for the BBC is to compete to become the a leading player across the English speaking media market. They should see their competition as Netflix and Amazon.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC subscription only, Sky and Liberty can pay them carriage charges or they can take the BT Sport route and force people to sign up manually. I think the BBC could definitely survive and eventually thrive under the HBO model, but I don't think it would happen over night and neither would it be pain free, there is so much fat at the BBC that would need to be trimmed in favour of TV and radio production that thousands would need to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

I disagree. I think that the increased subscription fee would balance the drop off in subscribers. The BBC's programming is popular and most people would pay to retain access to it. The Sky platform would also become a lot less attractive as it would no longer include any BBC offerings. I imagine that there would be job losses, but what can you do? These things happen. But what government is going to legislate to make watching TV more expensive?

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

All this though again is really just a lot of hot air and nonsense. It fundamentally doesn't get the heart of the problem with the BBC. The licence fee isn't fit for the 21st Century, it is completely unenforceable and based on a totally outdated model.. But while the big boys like Sky, BT, Netflix have the deep pockets to outbid the BBC on one hand (so the BBC sport offering is a joke), they are also currently using that big beast position in other areas to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

The big opportunity for the BBC is to compete to become the a leading player across the English speaking media market. They should see their competition as Netflix and Amazon.

A subscription-based BBC would have so many exciting opportunities - both in the UK and internationally. I don't think this government or any other one is brave enough to make it happen though.

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

@PaulBrandITV: Looks like Tories *could* back @LeanneWood to become First Minister of Wales in Assembly vote, to block Carwyn Jones https://t.co/tGEnITYis9

She'd be daft to take it with Labour holding very nearly half the AMs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-wales-politics-36257904


The vote for First Minister was tied 29-29, and the Presiding Officer says plenary is postponed.

So Mr Jones fails to be elected first minister, but will continue to act as FM while he seeks allies.

The Conservatives and UKIP supported moves by Plaid Cymru to give the job to Plaid leader Leanne Wood instead

@C4Ciaran: "What do I do now?" Presiding Officer is overheard asking.

Welsh Assembly fails to nominate First Minister and is adjourned.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC subscription only, Sky and Liberty can pay them carriage charges or they can take the BT Sport route and force people to sign up manually. I think the BBC could definitely survive and eventually thrive under the HBO model, but I don't think it would happen over night and neither would it be pain free, there is so much fat at the BBC that would need to be trimmed in favour of TV and radio production that thousands would need to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

I disagree. I think that the increased subscription fee would balance the drop off in subscribers. The BBC's programming is popular and most people would pay to retain access to it. The Sky platform would also become a lot less attractive as it would no longer include any BBC offerings. I imagine that there would be job losses, but what can you do? These things happen. But what government is going to legislate to make watching TV more expensive?

They wouldn't. Grant a two-year Charter to cover the conversion period, then guarantee the subscription amount until 2021. After that, let it float freely. The govt would say the fee isn't their decision any more.

One option - as regards ownership - would be to mutualise the Beeb: make it owned by the subscribers. That way, they'd elect the directors and would have even less cause to blame the government.

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

@PaulBrandITV: Looks like Tories *could* back @LeanneWood to become First Minister of Wales in Assembly vote, to block Carwyn Jones https://t.co/tGEnITYis9

She'd be daft to take it with Labour holding very nearly half the AMs.

12 AMs for Plaid !

It'll be alot less if Leanne Wood becomes FM backed by the Conservatives in 2020...

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC subscription only, Sky and Liberty can pay them carriage charges or they can take the BT Sport route and force people to sign up manually. I think the BBC could definitely survive and eventually thrive under the HBO model, but I don't think it would happen over night and neither would it be pain free, there is so much fat at the BBC that would need to be trimmed in favour of TV and radio production that thousands would need to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

I disagree. I think that the increased subscription fee would balance the drop off in subscribers. The BBC's programming is popular and most people would pay to retain access to it. The Sky platform would also become a lot less attractive as it would no longer include any BBC offerings. I imagine that there would be job losses, but what can you do? These things happen. But what government is going to legislate to make watching TV more expensive?

One imagines Sky and the BBC would come to an agreement for carriage fees. Both parties would be stupid not to.

Plato_Says said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

Even then, I can foresee ways in which that can be avoided and see the luuvies end up with a big wedge. Also Graham Norton getting a big load of cash is a tiny drop in their budget, while they go blowing far more money on other nonsense e.g. £1bn on failed IT projects.

snip

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC subscription only, Sky and Liberty can pay them carriage charges or they can take the BT Sport route and force people to sign up manually. I think the BBC could definitely survive and eventually thrive under the HBO model, but I don't think it would happen over night and neither would it be pain free, there is so much fat at the BBC that would need to be trimmed in favour of TV and radio production that thousands would need to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

I no longer visit the BBC's website, don't watch their TV bar the odd DP pointed to on here, and don't bother with their radio. I don't feel I'm losing anything. There's so much choice out there. I happily pay for Netflix, Amazon and the Times. I've no problem paying for what I want - I object very deeply to being threatened with imprisonment for not paying the Telly Tax.

It's like buying a washing machine and forced to buy Daz, when I choose Persil.

You could choose Sunil instead?

http://img.dooyoo.de/DE_DE/orig/1/4/9/2/2/1492201.jpg

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

I disagree. I think that the increased subscription fee would balance the drop off in subscribers. The BBC's programming is popular and most people would pay to retain access to it. The Sky platform would also become a lot less attractive as it would no longer include any BBC offerings. I imagine that there would be job losses, but what can you do? These things happen. But what government is going to legislate to make watching TV more expensive?

You are thinking about this way too much in regards of today, rather than 5-10 years down the line. This idea of these platforms where one can only access it via an aerial or a satellite dish is going to be obsolete.

All the content providers are too over protective of their material, desperately trying to ring fence them on different platforms and different regions. In music, that has basically been blow out of the water. If you aren't on Spotify you are either one of probably 20 artists big enough to be able to get away with that or a moron (and even if you are the former you are probably still the later).

I am looking at the BBC brand. Name recognition is at least half the battle, whatever platforms emerge over the coming years. The BBC has huge - unmatched - global brand equity. The opportunities that will create are immense.

Don't disagree with that.

Hence why I would have in this consultation a move towards the future, rather than stick with the outdated model (and one which is starting to fail, let alone 5+ years down the line).

I am not sure where why you are so convinced the resultant fee would have to be twice the current amount, when Sky is already coming under a huge amount of competition from lower cost alternatives that offer huge amounts of content at sub £10 a month.

One could argue that a free BBC could do as Netflix as doing an exploit the global markets properly. One problem BBC would have on that front, iPlayer technology is a bag of spanners. Amazon / Netflix is leagues ahead of it.

@DominicWaghorn: Me: is Nigeria corrupt?
President Buhari: yes

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

I disagree. I think that the increased subscription fee would balance the drop off in subscribers. The BBC's programming is popular and most people would pay to retain access to it. The Sky platform would also become a lot less attractive as it would no longer include any BBC offerings. I imagine that there would be job losses, but what can you do? These things happen. But what government is going to legislate to make watching TV more expensive?

They wouldn't. Grant a two-year Charter to cover the conversion period, then guarantee the subscription amount until 2021. After that, let it float freely. The govt would say the fee isn't their decision any more.

One option - as regards ownership - would be to mutualise the Beeb: make it owned by the subscribers. That way, they'd elect the directors and would have even less cause to blame the government.

That's not just going to happen though, is it? There will be debate, there will be votes and the public will be told how it will all end up. The government may decide that it is worth taking the hit to do, but I am not sure that they will want to spend political capital in that way.

Debates and votes on the future, certainly, but I think a govt that guaranteed that the fee wouldn't rise more than, say, RPI until 2021 would suffer little backlash from any subsequent increases. Probably more from an original decision to de-Charter it in the first place, irrespective of how it was done.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

@PaulBrandITV: Looks like Tories *could* back @LeanneWood to become First Minister of Wales in Assembly vote, to block Carwyn Jones https://t.co/tGEnITYis9

She'd be daft to take it with Labour holding very nearly half the AMs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-wales-politics-36257904


The vote for First Minister was tied 29-29, and the Presiding Officer says plenary is postponed.

So Mr Jones fails to be elected first minister, but will continue to act as FM while he seeks allies.

The Conservatives and UKIP supported moves by Plaid Cymru to give the job to Plaid leader Leanne Wood instead

So the Lib Dems hold the future of Wales in her hands?

Walesonline reports that JOnes would have lost the vote if Kirsty Williams of the lib dems had not voted for him..

taffys said:

Walesonline reports that JOnes would have lost the vote if Kirsty Williams of the lib dems had not voted for him..

Would 28 v 30 (out of 60) have carried it for Wood?

logical_song said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

I think that may be Twitter shorthand

@BethRigby: EXCL: The govt WILL ask #BBC stars to disclose their earnings -- if they are over £450k: Basically anyone earning more than Lord Hall

to drive small fish out of business in things that aren't the core of what the BBC should be about.

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC subscription only, Sky and Liberty can pay them carriage charges or they can take the BT Sport route and force people to sign up manually. I think the BBC could definitely survive and eventually thrive under the HBO model, but I don't think it would happen over night and neither would it be pain free, there is so much fat at the BBC that would need to be trimmed in favour of TV and radio production that thousands would need to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

I disagree. I think that the increased subscription fee would balance the drop off in subscribers. The BBC's programming is popular and most people would pay to retain access to it. The Sky platform would also become a lot less attractive as it would no longer include any BBC offerings. I imagine that there would be job losses, but what can you do? These things happen. But what government is going to legislate to make watching TV more expensive?

The BBC isn't broken, don't fix it. Whittingdale won't last if he keeps attacking the BBC.

The licence fee was an eminently sensible system in 1920s, when it was the only provider. It was reasonable in the 1970s in the duopoly. But in a mass-provider, mass-media environment, imposing a poll tax on (near enough) everyone is neither equitable nor fair, nor is it just to the Beeb, imposing restrictions on it that its competitors can avoid.

david_herdson said:

logical_song said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also interesting it says "salaries". Graham Norton doesn't get paid a salary by the BBC, but he is one of the best remunerated.

[...]

The BBC has brand recognition and equity unequalled anywhere in broadcasting. If it became a subscription based service, then it would be able to charge what Sky does and insist that its offerings are removed from the Sky platform. It could also compete with ITV and Sky for advertising. And, on top of that, raise money in the capital markets. There is, in fact, every chance that it would become bigger and more dominant than it is at the moment.

I would be more than happy to test that theory. End the licence fee and make the BBC subscription only, Sky and Liberty can pay them carriage charges or they can take the BT Sport route and force people to sign up manually. I think the BBC could definitely survive and eventually thrive under the HBO model, but I don't think it would happen over night and neither would it be pain free, there is so much fat at the BBC that would need to be trimmed in favour of TV and radio production that thousands would need to be culled, the Salford production centre would be shut down and the jobs moved back to London and many, many millions would refuse to pay the new subscription fees and do without BBC programmes.

I disagree. I think that the increased subscription fee would balance the drop off in subscribers. The BBC's programming is popular and most people would pay to retain access to it. The Sky platform would also become a lot less attractive as it would no longer include any BBC offerings. I imagine that there would be job losses, but what can you do? These things happen. But what government is going to legislate to make watching TV more expensive?

The BBC isn't broken, don't fix it. Whittingdale won't last if he keeps attacking the BBC.

The licence fee was an eminently sensible system in 1920s, when it was the only provider. It was reasonable in the 1970s in the duopoly. But in a mass-provider, mass-media environment, imposing a poll tax on (near enough) everyone is neither equitable nor fair, nor is it just to the Beeb, imposing restrictions on it that its competitors can avoid.

We have two discussions going on:

Should the BBC receive public funding?
If so, how?

My view is that the answers are "yes" and "out of the general taxation".

TheWhiteRabbit said:

taffys said:

Walesonline reports that JOnes would have lost the vote if Kirsty Williams of the lib dems had not voted for him..

Would 28 v 30 (out of 60) have carried it for Wood?

Dunno, but Plaid/UKIP/tory coalition....??? surely not.

A subscription service may work for television how would it work for radio?

https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/730270110783574016