What's so special about the BBC? I can watch the news on Sky via Freeview.
The Beeb is far more than that. It is part of our shared national identity. Just to take one example - their archive. It's a treasure trove. If the BBC were to disappear and all we had were commercial enterprises producing media product for maximized profit, we would be much the poorer for it, culturally, as a country, as a society.
+1
It provides a valuable contribution to the nation's cultural life I agree.
So who is the father of Sharon's baby - Keanu or Phil? And how did she conceive so easily at the age of 50? I can't wait until we find out - no doubt in a Christmas day special/
BBC Radio is good. R4, R5L, Sports Extra and 6 Music, for me, are worth the licence fee. There is no comparable commercial equivalent. Edit: Ooops. I see you made the very same point earlier. Well then, I agree with you. . The problem with BBC 4 is, I so rarely watch TV, I never know what is on.
So pay a subscription or pay for it with commercials. Why should I pay for your radio, if I want to watch commercial TV live?
You do. You'll buy things that travel along it in the course of their manufacture. All the country's motorways and trunk roads are vital for commerce, defence, etc. Services that you use rely on that that motorway. Somehow or other, you have to pay for your part of its upkeep, whether or not you actually travel along it.
But that doesn't matter. The BBC isn't like that. It's an anachronism, not a vital piece of infrastructure. And as much as it pains me to agree with the right-wing scum on this site, they're right about the licence fee. It needs scrapped.
The principle of a high quality, public broadcaster operating differently to purely commercial players is not, IMO, an anachronism. Why on earth would it be. On the contrary I would argue that it is more relevant and important now than it has ever been. Leave this field 100% to the market? No thank you.
But the licence fee, yes, that can be viewed as outmoded. Scrap it and absorb into general taxation. Perhaps with a trimming of the Beeb's remit at the same time to keep a handle on costs. That would be OK by me.
Raab: Stephen Metcalfe. Stewart: Tobias Ellwood, Margot James. Gove: David Mundell. Johnson: David Evenett, Andrew Griffiths, Esther McVey, Ben Bradley, Andrew Lewer.
Bad news for Hunt, not one new endorsement and Hancock endorses Boris tonight with the rest of his backers not going with him to camp Johnson likely to back Stewart.
Bad news for Javid too who also gets no new backers and will likely be knocked out on Tuesday
I think Javid will fall short. Can Raab and Stewart muster 33 votes on Tuesday? It's going to be very tight.
I agree Javid likely is eliminated on Tuesday and it is between Raab and Stewart for the remaining slot. If Rory gets through that he could then knock out Hunt to be the last Remainer standing if he picks up some of Javid's support though Raab will also have his eye on that if he gets through and will want to knock out Gove to be the last non Boris Leaver standing
Hancock comes up with some desperate excuse to back Bozo .
Hilariously he says he’ll hold him to a pro business and One Nation agenda .
Of course the man who said fuck business and who is happy to take the UK out on no deal is allegedly one for the pro business agenda and the fact the ERG have already listed their ransom demands to Bozo apparently is a good sign for the One Nation mantra !
One Nationism or whatever this vacuous guff is certainly doesn’t match up with capitalism on steroids which the ERG and the rest of the death cult want .
And this is the problem with four of the remaining candidates. When push comes to shove they’ll bend over and be happy to play the prison bitch to Bozo . So do a Hancock at the end and try and spin their way to some we must unite behind the leader claptrap , hoping the Great Leader will deliver a cabinet job for their unedifying arse licking .
That leaves just Stewart who has zip chance of making the final two but tries to come across as a reasonably sane and sensible candidate, sadly he’s in the wrong contest .
He’s not auditioning for the country but a minority of mainly Empire 2.0 wannabes , now over run by an even worse bunch of bitter English nationalists who still haven’t worked out that the war ended over 70 years ago and that the UK is no longer the centre of the universe .
The media trying to polish the turd that is the Tory leadership , desperately try and imbue the contest with some interest.
Sadly no ones buying this , we’re not stocking up on the popcorn till Bozo is told to go and fuck himself by the EU .
Yep. Boris is uniting the Tory Party by telling each side exactly what it wants to hear. At least he has the sense to do it in private, unlike May.
The Bozo saga will end in tears . May was dull and robotic , the Tories saw her as just getting the job done , no bells and whistles .
Many Tories have built Johnson up to be the Great Messiah , the showman who can deliver.
When he doesn’t deliver the let down will be huge and the aftermath brutal .
Boris will deliver a majority against Corbyn and Farage which is what he is mainly there for.
Once that is done delivering Brexit Deal or No Deal is much easier and that is what he will get the majority to do
You do. You'll buy things that travel along it in the course of their manufacture. All the country's motorways and trunk roads are vital for commerce, defence, etc. Services that you use rely on that that motorway. Somehow or other, you have to pay for your part of its upkeep, whether or not you actually travel along it.
But that doesn't matter. The BBC isn't like that. It's an anachronism, not a vital piece of infrastructure. And as much as it pains me to agree with the right-wing scum on this site, they're right about the licence fee. It needs scrapped.
The principle of a high quality, public broadcaster operating differently to purely commercial players is not, IMO, an anachronism. Why on earth would it be. On the contrary I would argue that it is more relevant and important now than it has ever been. Leave this field 100% to the market? No thank you.
But the licence fee, yes, that can be viewed as outmoded. Scrap it and absorb into general taxation. Perhaps with a trimming of the Beeb's remit at the same time to keep a handle on costs. That would be OK by me.
It's an anachronism because television and audio are no longer the kinds of things that need the might of the state to be viable. Any idiot with a Samsung can make television or "radio" (podcasts, really; broadcast frequencies definitely ARE the preserve of the state, but declining rapidly in relevance). Quality obviously requires some level of investment, but the market is good at generating quality products where competition is possible. Netflix has shown that great quality doesn't need license fees or broadcast slots, to make great tv. There are any number of great podcasts made by non-broadcast providers.
TV and radio have become dissociated from frequency and time-constrained slots. On-demand is not the future any more, it's the present. A former natural monopoly has passed away and is now lying in state. Mourn it if you must, but it's not the 1950s any more.
"Years and Years" works even better when you realise it's a Doctor-lite episode of Doctor Who, around series 4. Russell T. Davies wrote a very similar episode "Turn Left" in 2008, and given that Davies is showrunner and Murray Gold is composer, the similarities are delicious.
No, didn't realize that. I haven't done Doctor Who since I was a kid. I like the characters in Years. 'Viv Rook' is horribly believable albeit a caricature. Cross between Katie Hopkins and Heidi Allen. Sort of. I particularly like how they make no effort to make the cast look older as time passes. Everyone stays exactly the same. Rather than a flaw, this works, oddly. For me it does, anyway. It's a very good piece of work. Was going to say original - but that was before I knew it was a Dr Who rip-off.
It's not really a rip-off[1] of Doctor Who[2], it's more a Spiritual Successor, and the theme - you take a family and follow them thru social changes - has been around for absolutely ages.
[1] Although RTD has a habit of reusing character names: "Viv Rook" is the name of the Katie Hopkins expy in "Years and Years" and a different character - a reporter - in The Sound of Drums [2] Even though Russell Tovey, Jessica Hynes and Anne Reid have all been in Doctor Who episodes during Davis's reign...
How is Homes under the hammer a national security matter?
Homes Under The Hammer & Sickle, to give it its full title, is the only thing standing between us and full-blown Communism.
Don't forget escape to the country.
I am looking forward to the next series - how will Giles and Jemima be able to afford that £950,000 cottage in rural Dorset and £155 a year for a tv licence? Or will they be forced to slum it during their golden years in Twickenham instead. Lets spend an hour looking at kitchens, bedrooms and toilets amidst the odd shot of a field until we find out!
More about license fees: in some countries the license is needed if you OWN device that can receive tv, even if you don't use it for that. Like a smartphone or a computer. It was that way in Romania until recently, and still is in Denmark.
Think about that. You have to have a license to be allowed to come on THIS site and talk about politics and/or betting. All because you can get tv on the same computer you're using now.
So pay a subscription or pay for it with commercials. Why should I pay for your radio, if I want to watch commercial TV live?
It is of course possible to turn the whole of media over to the market. Have it driven 100% by the profit motive - just like, to take the obvious example, hairdressing.
And if it transpires that there is no mass demand for, say, anything but sport, drama, soap, reality, quiz, panel and porn, then fine - everything else becomes niche and extremely expensive to consume if it is to be made at all.
How is Homes under the hammer a national security matter?
Homes Under The Hammer & Sickle, to give it its full title, is the only thing standing between us and full-blown Communism.
Don't forget escape to the country.
I am looking forward to the next series - how will Giles and Jemima be able to afford that £950,000 cottage in rural Dorset and £155 a year for a tv licence? Or will they be forced to slum it during their golden years in Twickenham instead. Lets spend an hour looking at kitchens, bedrooms and toilets amidst the odd shot of a field until we find out!
Ah, no. Escape to the Country is actually agraro-fascist propaganda. It combines an idealised vision of pre-industrial life with a patrimonialist slant (here's OUR recommendation that you are not allowed to see, trust your institutions to Choose Wisely for you). It's anti-consumerist, anti-community and anti-social. The ideal life is to avoid peers but trust in the beneficence of the powers that be. There's always religious iconography backing this up, inserted into the locations and choice of shots used. The message is very clear.
Because the market drives up quality in spheres where competition is possible. The BBC stifles competition. Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low, and the consumer is the best judge of what she should consume (unlike, say, medical services).
I am looking forward to when we don't have to listen to Rory Stewart anymore with his utter drivel. From his nonsense about love, to his unicorn deal. Urgh!
Because the market drives up quality in spheres where competition is possible. The BBC stifles competition. Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low, and the consumer is the best judge of what she should consume (unlike, say, medical services).
The private sector being good at something does not mean that the public sector should have zero role in it. It depends what that 'something' is.
Here we are talking about something - the media - that is absolutely crucial to the health and sanity of our society. At present there is one public broadcaster (the BBC) and a whole host of private operators. It's a mix. Media is a mixed economy. As opposed to the army, for example (all public) or estate agency (all private).
For me, that's about right. I do not see any compelling rationale for moving the media model closer to either extreme. So I would not nationalize Netflix and I would not privatize the BBC.
It's an anachronism because television and audio are no longer the kinds of things that need the might of the state to be viable. Any idiot with a Samsung can make television or "radio" (podcasts, really; broadcast frequencies definitely ARE the preserve of the state, but declining rapidly in relevance). Quality obviously requires some level of investment, but the market is good at generating quality products where competition is possible. Netflix has shown that great quality doesn't need license fees or broadcast slots, to make great tv. There are any number of great podcasts made by non-broadcast providers.
TV and radio have become dissociated from frequency and time-constrained slots. On-demand is not the future any more, it's the present. A former natural monopoly has passed away and is now lying in state. Mourn it if you must, but it's not the 1950s any more.
Technology marches forward but the ownership issue is evergreen. This is nothing to do with nostalgia, let alone for the ghastly 1950s.
Because the market drives up quality in spheres where competition is possible. The BBC stifles competition. Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low, and the consumer is the best judge of what she should consume (unlike, say, medical services).
Your second sentence "The BBC stifles competition" and your third sentence "Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low" contradict each other. If barriers are historically low, how can it stifle competition?
How is Homes under the hammer a national security matter?
Homes Under The Hammer & Sickle, to give it its full title, is the only thing standing between us and full-blown Communism.
Don't forget escape to the country.
I am looking forward to the next series - how will Giles and Jemima be able to afford that £950,000 cottage in rural Dorset and £155 a year for a tv licence? Or will they be forced to slum it during their golden years in Twickenham instead. Lets spend an hour looking at kitchens, bedrooms and toilets amidst the odd shot of a field until we find out!
Famously Kirsty Allsopp, in one of her property porn programs some years ago, said that one of her clients didn't complain, she lived with her parents until she could save up a deposit. Rent-free, and her parents acted as guarantor. Grits teeth...
Plus if they use the phrase "the wow factor" one more time there will be horrible murders...
How is Homes under the hammer a national security matter?
Homes Under The Hammer & Sickle, to give it its full title, is the only thing standing between us and full-blown Communism.
Don't forget escape to the country.
I am looking forward to the next series - how will Giles and Jemima be able to afford that £950,000 cottage in rural Dorset and £155 a year for a tv licence? Or will they be forced to slum it during their golden years in Twickenham instead. Lets spend an hour looking at kitchens, bedrooms and toilets amidst the odd shot of a field until we find out!
Granite worktops. Granite worktops! Smeg fridge! Must have the wow factor! I haven't fallen in love with it, can I see another thirteen before I make my mind up? Must have the wow factor! Exposed beams! Original fittings!
LOOK. JUST GO TO F*****G VICTORIA PLUM OR WICKES OR WHATEVER AND BUY THE CHEAPEST STUFF! NOBODY WILL NOTICE AND YOU'VE ALL GOT THE SAME TASTE ANYWAY. AND NO, GREY CARPETS ARE NOT GREAT AND I DON'T CARE HOW TRENDY THEY ARE. AND WHAT'S WITH THE MAGNOLIA? DOES THIS LOOK LIKE 2007? AAARGH!
Because the market drives up quality in spheres where competition is possible. The BBC stifles competition. Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low, and the consumer is the best judge of what she should consume (unlike, say, medical services).
Your second sentence "The BBC stifles competition" and your third sentence "Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low" contradict each other. If barriers are historically low, how can it stifle competition?
The BBC stifles competition because it sucks in revenue that should be spent by the consumer on their choices. It means subscription-based services have a higher consumer-cost that the cannot do anything about. If you have Sky, you have to pay the BBC. That's a barrier to free choice. Without the license fee, there is conceivably spending power freed up amongst consumers for a new subscription broadcaster / on demand service.
Meanwhile the supplier barriers are low: technology and software are cheap and easy to use. So the production of quality programming is now "just" a matter of talent and hard work, rather than talent, hard work, and a massive capital investment.
My own personal viewing habits are rather restricted by the license fee, because I won't pay. That prevents me watching ITV, C4, C5, Sky etc. So even if I wanted to subscribe to Sky — and I used to — I cannot because it's tied to another choice. That is a living breathing example of market failure. (I cannot say that I definitely want Sky, because I don't know what it's like these days)
Because the market drives up quality in spheres where competition is possible. The BBC stifles competition. Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low, and the consumer is the best judge of what she should consume (unlike, say, medical services).
The private sector being good at something does not mean that the public sector should have zero role in it. It depends what that 'something' is.
Here we are talking about something - the media - that is absolutely crucial to the health and sanity of our society. At present there is one public broadcaster (the BBC) and a whole host of private operators. It's a mix. Media is a mixed economy. As opposed to the army, for example (all public) or estate agency (all private).
For me, that's about right. I do not see any compelling rationale for moving the media model closer to either extreme. So I would not nationalize Netflix and I would not privatize the BBC.
I certainly agree with the first part of what you said, that the public sector has a role in certain sectors that the private sector does well. I just happen to think that programming isn't one of those sectors. I would retain government subsidies on minority-language programming (as already happens with S4C).
Comments
So who is the father of Sharon's baby - Keanu or Phil? And how did she conceive so easily at the age of 50? I can't wait until we find out - no doubt in a Christmas day special/
(Seriously: I didn't spot it. Well done you!)
But the licence fee, yes, that can be viewed as outmoded. Scrap it and absorb into general taxation. Perhaps with a trimming of the Beeb's remit at the same time to keep a handle on costs. That would be OK by me.
Once that is done delivering Brexit Deal or No Deal is much easier and that is what he will get the majority to do
Phew, what a relief.
Netflix has shown that great quality doesn't need license fees or broadcast slots, to make great tv. There are any number of great podcasts made by non-broadcast providers.
TV and radio have become dissociated from frequency and time-constrained slots. On-demand is not the future any more, it's the present. A former natural monopoly has passed away and is now lying in state. Mourn it if you must, but it's not the 1950s any more.
[1] Although RTD has a habit of reusing character names: "Viv Rook" is the name of the Katie Hopkins expy in "Years and Years" and a different character - a reporter - in The Sound of Drums
[2] Even though Russell Tovey, Jessica Hynes and Anne Reid have all been in Doctor Who episodes during Davis's reign...
Tuesday's ballot is an afternoon one, from 3pm to 5pm, with a result expected at about 6pm.
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2019/06/timetable-for-the-parliamentary-stage-of-the-conservative-leadership-election.html
I am looking forward to the next series - how will Giles and Jemima be able to afford that £950,000 cottage in rural Dorset and £155 a year for a tv licence? Or will they be forced to slum it during their golden years in Twickenham instead. Lets spend an hour looking at kitchens, bedrooms and toilets amidst the odd shot of a field until we find out!
It was that way in Romania until recently, and still is in Denmark.
Think about that. You have to have a license to be allowed to come on THIS site and talk about politics and/or betting. All because you can get tv on the same computer you're using now.
Weird.
And if it transpires that there is no mass demand for, say, anything but sport, drama, soap, reality, quiz, panel and porn, then fine - everything else becomes niche and extremely expensive to consume if it is to be made at all.
That is an option. One could do that.
But it begs the same question you pose - Why?
The BBC stifles competition.
Barriers to entry into "broadcasting" are historically low, and the consumer is the best judge of what she should consume (unlike, say, medical services).
Here we are talking about something - the media - that is absolutely crucial to the health and sanity of our society. At present there is one public broadcaster (the BBC) and a whole host of private operators. It's a mix. Media is a mixed economy. As opposed to the army, for example (all public) or estate agency (all private).
For me, that's about right. I do not see any compelling rationale for moving the media model closer to either extreme. So I would not nationalize Netflix and I would not privatize the BBC.
Plus if they use the phrase "the wow factor" one more time there will be horrible murders...
LOOK. JUST GO TO F*****G VICTORIA PLUM OR WICKES OR WHATEVER AND BUY THE CHEAPEST STUFF! NOBODY WILL NOTICE AND YOU'VE ALL GOT THE SAME TASTE ANYWAY. AND NO, GREY CARPETS ARE NOT GREAT AND I DON'T CARE HOW TRENDY THEY ARE. AND WHAT'S WITH THE MAGNOLIA? DOES THIS LOOK LIKE 2007? AAARGH!
Meanwhile the supplier barriers are low: technology and software are cheap and easy to use. So the production of quality programming is now "just" a matter of talent and hard work, rather than talent, hard work, and a massive capital investment.
My own personal viewing habits are rather restricted by the license fee, because I won't pay. That prevents me watching ITV, C4, C5, Sky etc. So even if I wanted to subscribe to Sky — and I used to — I cannot because it's tied to another choice. That is a living breathing example of market failure. (I cannot say that I definitely want Sky, because I don't know what it's like these days)
I would retain government subsidies on minority-language programming (as already happens with S4C).