Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories get closer in Mail on Sunday Survation poll
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories get closer in Mail on Sunday Survation poll
By 60% to 18% those in the poll said they opposed when asked this question: “At the moment the average annual household energy bill includes £128 in “green taxes”, used to subsidise items such as wind farms, and other government measures. By 2020, this figure will be around £270 Do you support or oppose the existence of these charges?”
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
@GeoffM - have sent you a PM with his name. He is one to watch I think. Wonder what odds I could get on him becoming guv'nor in 6 years?
@Tim_B Norwegian Air is starting up flight - Gatwick to NY for £150 and to LA for £199. Presumably plus tax in both cases though.
Sleazy broken Labour on the slide.
Lab had a 10% lead with survation a fortnight ago.
Lab led 37/29 in Survation on Thursday (poll not reported anywhere). These changes are from that Thurs poll.
The public wants to pay as little as possible - they do not want fancy committees slapping extra charges on their bills - WHATEVER they are for.
'The BBC could lose its exclusive right to the licence fee if it does not tackle a “culture” of secrecy, waste and unbalanced reporting, a senior Cabinet minister warns.'
" Last week, this newspaper highlighted questions over a bulletin by Mark Easton, the BBC’s home editor, on a European Commission report about benefits for migrants. It appeared to draw inaccurate conclusions and fail to present the Government’s position fairly.
Mr Shapps said the item was “wrong” and added that there had been problems with other items by Mr Easton, including one on the Government’s austerity measures, which Mr Shapps described as prophesying “Armageddon, rubbish on the streets and people unburied”.
Although the minister stopped short of an accusation of “institutional bias” he said: “I do think there is, possibly with the particular journalist, but also there is an editorial question for the BBC about applying fairness in both directions. That also is a question of credibility for the organisation.”
He highlighted an opinion poll two weeks ago that concluded that the public were content with the outcome of the spending cuts so far, which the BBC downplayed.
“When they were proved categorically wrong, and people gave the wrong answer and said their services were improved, their response was to bury the story,” he said."
“At the moment the average annual household energy bill includes £128 in “green taxes”, used to subsidise items such as wind farms, and other government measures. By 2020, this figure will be around £270 Do you support or oppose the existence of these charges?”
Just complete nonsense from a psephological perspective
Mr. Ricardohos, that question is poorly phrased, as was one ITV news ran with the other night.
It was somethng like: "Have you benefited from the improving economy?" Sounds reasonable, but the problem is 71% said "No", but No can mean either "I am in the same position" or "My situation has worsened".
Very often pollsters add bad questions which are either leading, or conflate issues.
Remember the background - licence fee frozen for 6 years has had no effect on the BBC at all - no services closed - the level of waste was so vast they could absorb that 6 year freeze.
Cameron should cut the Licence Fee in nominal terms by about £5 per year - ie £145 to £140 to £135 to £130 to £125.
That would be small enough to avoid the political damage of the BBC collapsing completely but big enough to ensure it really did have to scale back.
Do not fluff this opportunity by handing the money saved to anyone else. Do what is popular.
Hilarious!
That should play well beyond the realm of the swivel-eyed right.
BBC3HD and BBC4HD are about to open.
They were going to make some radio closures but dropped the plans.
The changes are very, very marginal.
The private sector will eagerly expand into the gaps if they are allowed to do so without excessive and stifling regulation.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 1h
BBC respond to threat to licence fee by criticising "political pressure". Isn't that actually a reason for scrapping the licence fee?
The BBC was forced to make cuts, and they did so in a way which didn't disrupt headline services but instead was inconvenient to the back-office. Exactly what the government say everyone should be doing.
My suggestion is that Grant gets to sign everything off before it's aired. That's really the only way to prevent BBC bias.
Release the BBC like a red-tinged dove to fly freely. Let it soar on lefty clouds and charge only those who wish to view it.
And free the airwaves too, so that other broadcasters can enter the market and we can choose our own sources of news, views and entertainment from a range of suppliers.
The Public Broadcasting Service is funded by its viewers, although this was not always the case.
For example, Georga Public Broadcasting has radio and TV studios etc provided by the state of Georgia, in return for which it is expected to produce travel and history programs to encourage folks to visit the state, as well as educational prgramming for kids. The best known of these is probably "Augusta's Master Plan", detailing the history of Augusta from Sherman's decision to bypass it to the development of The Masters.
Programming on PBS is funded by its viewers. 3 times a year it's 'pledge time', for about 10 days or until the target is reached. The stations ask for funds around and during programming. The most popular programming - in other words generating the most pledges - is noted. It's quite simple - you simply call the number on your screen with a credit card.
If certain programing has outstanding value to you, you can pledge to support it.
Really? Really?
Privatise the BBC.
*I* should decide whether or not BBC output is acceptable.
Sunday Times has 1,000 emails from Unite re Falkirk
More than 1,000 emails reveal how Unite chiefs subverted an inquiry ordered by the Labour leader into allegations that the union had rigged votes in Falkirk to get its nominee selected as the party’s parliamentary candidate.
The dossier of emails was passed to police last week. It reveals how Unite chiefs:
■ Told the union’s PR team to dig out “nasty stuff” on key Labour party figures
■ Wrote witnesses’ testimony withdrawing key evidence of alleged wrongdoing, with the new statements approved by the official implicated in the scandal
■ Tracked Labour investigators as they interviewed witnesses in Falkirk and boasted how one witness had told them to “F*** off”
■ Planned to use senior union and Labour figures to intimidate and disrupt Miliband’s investigation team.
- The political affiliation, if any, of BBC employees working in news and current affairs
- The newspapers read by BBC employees working in news and current affairs
- The frequency with which politicians of different parties interviewed on Today are interrupted by the interviewer.
No reasonable person could object to this sort of objective test, could they?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03fv4sv/Inspector_Montalbano_Series_3_Hall_of_Mirrors/
You mean like Downton Abbey and Foyle's War? They air much itv stuff too, and lots of other independent UK stuff. There's nowhere near as much BBC stuff as there used to be. BBC America took care of that.
Also PBS pays for its drama, BBC or otherwise.
Also, what has the origin of its paid programming got to do with the funding model of the BBC?
You would be changing the funding method - not the BBC itself, which would have to adapt itself to a different business model.
Internal Tory polling shows that it resonates with the voters.
They (voters) universally get it. They know that when it comes to his price freeze, it’s a bit like a bump in the carpet. You can step on the bump, and flatten it, but it just pops up somewhere else,” said a strategist.
You could, of course, investigate in which papers the BBC advertises its jobs (thus ensuring the bias of applicants) and therefore sends advertising revenue to.
>>Excellent. Privatise it. If it really earns money then someone will carry on doing it.
Either privatized or adopting a PBS-like funding model, there's no reason the BBC itself couldn't carry on doing it.
The argument is not "BBC licence fee or no BBC", it's "How does the BBC get funded". In some shape or form the Beeb will survive. In this day and age, with so many alternatives, there is no reason to have a taxpayer funded broadcaster. The current form BBC is a dinosaur from a long gone age.
The US bugged Merkel's phone since 2002.
PBTories are known for their staunch defence of personal liberties. THey are surprisingly quite about this one.
Certainly it's the only form of media in Britain that even purports to provide balanced coverage - all the newspapers would probably cheerfully admit to one bias or another. It doesn't always succeed but that's a reason to discuss how that might be improved, not to get rid of it, in the same way as cancer remedies that don't always work should be refined, not abolished.
>>The BBC is not a taxpayer funded broadcaster.
You are splitting hairs.
True, the beeb is not funded directly out of taxation. But the licence fee is compulsory. That is a tax however you look at it. The BBC is funded by the government forcing people to pay a sum of money for its funding each year.
As a large majority of those paying the license fee are taxpayers, and the licence fee and penalties for non-payment are prescribed by law, it's disingenuous at best to say it's not a taxpayer funded broadcaster. It manifestly is precisely that.
That's really a rather perfect comparison.
See here: publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/128/128i.pdf
Good story.
The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
>>The problem with the US model is that it gives greater weight to the tastes of the wealthy -
Does it? What grounds do you have for such a statement?
I can only speak for Georgia. The average pledge on a radio pledge is $35-75,The average pledge on a TV pledge is $60-$150.
If you call Georgia Public Broadcasting on a radio pledge, it may well be me who answers the phone. If you call during a TV pledge break, I may well be the floor director running the studio.
In both cases I help review and analyze the pledges. GPB (and other PBS outfits) has sophisticated techniques for analyzing who has pledged what from where, and what he profile of that zip code is. When you rely on donations for funding you need to know your audience.
Yes, there are wealthy donors, but the broadcasters do NOT want someone to call and donate $1,000-$10,000.
The way it usually done is that the announcer will say that any pledge of (say) $50 or more between (say) 8 and 10pm tonight, or during (say) Downton Abbey will be matched by either an anonymous donor, or a named donor or company.
By doing it this way much more money is raised, and many smaller donors can feel they made a big difference, and are encouraged to donate.
Trust me, it really works well. By using the money of the wealthy to augment that of the less wealthy, the wealthy do their part, but at the direction of the less well off.
Honestly, tell me, do you actually have any idea at all how fund raising works for PBS?
Yet you feel obliged to opine that it suppresses the tastes of the less well off?
There was a real danger point for the SNP last week when INEOS announced it was going to close the Grangemouth petrol chemicals plant. Having recently brought Prestwick Airport back into public ownership, and also pledged to renationalise Royal Mail in an Independent Scotland. There was the start of a campaign demanding they nationalise the Grangemouth Plant to save those lost jobs. The SNP had left themselves open to creating unrealistic expectations they just could not possible meet. But can imagine the kind of message this must all be sending out to investors if Scotland was to go Independent?
>>The vast majority of people oppose it being funded out of taxation. That is because it will then be subject to diktat from the ruling party.
I'm sure they do, and the worry is valid. But it effectively is anyway.
The licence fee gives plausible deniability but it is a tax by any reasonable definition.
The fact that you are comparing prices from two broadcasters (one taxpayer-funded) is an excellent argument for deregulation and other broadcasters being on the scene.
Even the World Cup final - broadcast over other channels too, two thirds will watch the BBC. That's how it is.
Well Nick Palmer did say up-thread that the BBC was like cancer.
'Even the World Cup final - broadcast over other channels too, two thirds will watch the BBC. That's how it is.'
So if the BBC is so highly valued,viewers will be delighted to pay for it via subscription.
Why are you so frightened of giving them a choice?
As a public service broadcaster, the BBC should not be spending oodles of taxpayers (or licence payers) money on sporting events, which can be amply covered by other broadcasters such as itv or Sky, none of which use tax payers money to bid for them, instead using their own.
The BBC remit should be to create programming in areas that commercial broadcasters wouldn't touch. For example the BBC Natural History Unit in Bristol has no peer anywhere else in the world for its programming. It is jaw dropping stuff. Planet Earth, the Blue Planet, Life etc make boatloads of money for the BBC in dvd sales. Ditto period drama. The BBC has no equal in this at present, although that is begining to change.
- and let's not forget the world's most widely watched factual TV program, (according to the Guinness Book of Records), Top Gear. There is a German version, and Australian version, and even a US version, all of which earn money for auntie. It makes huge amounts of money for the BBC. 5th gear is woeful by comparison. Top Gear is sold in 212 countries and territories.
>>The BBC like the NHS is a much revered institution in this country.
That's the best you've got? Really?
If it's that revered, people wouldn't have to be forced to pay for it! Ditto of course, the NHS.
As aways, the underlying thrust of your argument is that if the funding method changes, there will be no BBC. That's simply not true. It would be different, but still there.
If people really 'revere' it, then they'll be happy to pay for it voluntarily, rather than by coercion and threat.
I shouldn't pay *extra* for cable at all. That's the *only* thing I should pay.
I buy a television set. Then I subscribe only to the channels that I wish to watch. Simple.