politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bernie back as favourite for the Dem nomination

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

Perhaps...but again BBC way too slow to adapt. Numberphile / Computerphile, huge following on YouTube. There is clearly demand for some right geeky stuff. Those 2 channels have a combined 5 million "subscribers" and basically every video gets several 100k views (I bet that is more than most BBC4 shows).

Rather sadly, I agree with this. When I look at the media I consume these days, scripted television drama rarely gets a look in: it's all YouTube talking heads and online print. I think my point about BBC political documentaries being important - @AndyJS 's YouTube channel would be nonexistent without it - but I suspect the drama argument has already been lost...

Anyhoo, here's some stuff:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0003wxb/the-brexit-storm-laura-kuenssbergs-inside-story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000cf6v/the-brexit-storm-continues-laura-kuenssbergs-inside-story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0006y2p/reflections-when-parties-split
https://www.youtube.com/user/steverichards14/videos

I find the BBC unwillingness to really try with using YouTube very strange. All the big US networks have cottoned on, and they use it to drive people to the full shows (and I bet make a decent amount of the advertising dollars). Now I presume the BBC probably can't run the ads / take ad money (again another reason for reform), but as a free ad for your full content, it is the way you do it these days.

It is where you will get the youth, but the BBC "youth" channel, BBC Three YouTube gets bugger all views. AFAIK, the supposedly digital focused Victoria Derbyshire show doesn't even have its own channel on YouTube, instead preferring to put out short clips on twitter.

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The destruction of one of the pillars of British life and envy of the world begins.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969

About time! Yes!

Crap.

And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.

Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.

Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay

Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.

In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, me the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.

It is way past its best.

The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".

The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.

So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.

"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."

It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.

If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.

I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

Radio 3 utterly dead under this plan.

Radio 6 as well I suspect.

Hence I still want some public subsidy for broadcasters

I don't. If people want to pay for radio let them voluntarily do so. If it's special why wouldn't people volunteer?

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD

I would miss BBC Radio in all its forms. It is generally still excellent. I would miss BBC4 which is also excellent. BBC4 is for Left-leaning Guardianista types like you and me, not Red Wall White Van Man. We will just have to learn to live without or pay for the privilege.

There are plenty of excellent history docs for example on BBC4 which are not just for Guardianistas

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The destruction of one of the pillars of British life and envy of the world begins.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969

About time! Yes!

Crap.

And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.

Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.

Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay

Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.

It is way past its best.

The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".

The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.

So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.

"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."

It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.

If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.

I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

Radio 3 utterly dead under this plan.

Radio 6 as well I suspect.

So what?

I'll miss Radio 3. Also BBC4.

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The destruction of one of the pillars of British life and envy of the world begins.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969

About time! Yes!

Crap.

And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.

Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.

Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay

Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.

In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, arody of itself.

It is way past its best.

The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".

The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.

So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.

"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."

It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.

If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.

I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

Radio 3 utterly dead under this plan.

Radio 6 as well I suspect.

So what?

That is why you are a libertarian and I am a conservative.

Libertarians believe the free market should do everything, conservatives believe the state has a role in preserving tradition and high culture

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The destruction of one of the pillars of British life and envy of the world begins.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969

About time! Yes!

Crap.

And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.

Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.

Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay

Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.

In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, me the viewer to be a moron and broadcast accordingly. Question Time for example has become a parody of itself.

It is way past its best.

The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.

So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.

"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."

It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.

If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.

I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

Radio 3 utterly dead under this plan.

Radio 6 as well I suspect.

Hence I still want some public subsidy for broadcasters

I don't. If people want to pay for radio let them voluntarily do so. If it's special why wouldn't people volunteer?

Not enough to ensure sufficient programmes of sufficient quality, again why you are a libertarian and I am a conservative

The thing that really brought BBC problems home to me was when I attended a presentation a few years back by BBC technology people talking about their future vision.

While Netflix / Amazon had 4k programming and Sky / BT were rolling it out, the BBC nope, we want to excitedly talk about a great new app idea they had where people could live film an event like a concert on their mobile, the app would send all the footage to the BBC and they could combine it with BBC main cameras to weave into their production.....

Given how cheap cameras are, there are already commercial solutions that basically do this without having to rely on the public. And people aren't buying 65" HDR OLED HDR tellies to watch some grainy jumpy crap streamed from the mosh pit of a concert.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The destruction of one of the pillars of British life and envy of the world begins.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969

About time! Yes!

Crap.

And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.

Not sure about that. The licence fee days are coming to an end.

Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay

Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.

In the digital age there are better sources of news and entertainment than the BBC. It's programming is depleted through budget constraints, arody of itself.

It is way past its best.

The fact that in the year 2020 BBC1 isn't even fully HD is a demonstration of just how shit and antiquated the BBC has become. Top listed channels on Sky's listings are all HD except for the BBC, scroll down and put BBC1 HD on and it won't be long before you get a message saying "programming is not available in your area".

The BBC simply isn't worth the licence fee. That's why its defenders are so terrified about it being a voluntary subscription - Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee.

So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.

"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."

I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

Radio 3 utterly dead under this plan.

Radio 6 as well I suspect.

So what?

That is why you are a libertarian and I am a conservative.

Libertarians believe the free market should do everything, conservatives believe the state has a role in preserving tradition and high culture

Who gets to define "high culture"?

BTW British Republicanism has a pedigree going back to the 1640s

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also why is BBC News not streamed on YouTube? I would have thought that given one of the remits of the BBC is to spread British news / views / values through the World Service, the 21st Century is not via the wireless it is via the YouTube.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also why is BBC News not streamed on YouTube? I would have thought that given one of the remits of the BBC is to spread British news / views / values through the World Service, the 21st Century is not via the wireless it is via the YouTube.

Yeah, at least make the News channel free to watch, like how the world service is free.

The BBC is just another institution to be trashed by the ‘conservative’ vandals.

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The destruction of one of the pillars of British life and envy of the world begins.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969

About time! Yes!

Crap.

And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.

Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.

It is way past its best.

So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.

"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."

It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.

If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.

I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

PBS was called the Petroleum Broadcasting Service for years as most of their 'high brow' drama and music was funded by oil companies. For many years "Live from The Met" a 3 to 4 hour live opera from NYC every Saturday afternoon was sponsored by Texaco. Also Masterpiece Theatre was for years sponsored by Exxon Mobil. That's just 2 examples and there are many.

When I was a boy there was Light Programme, Third Programme, Home Service and BBC TV. No BBC 2, no Radio 1. No local radio.No web site. Looking at the beb today, it is unrecognisable from that base. to put it politely the BBC has suffered from Mission creep.

PBS though still receives millions of dollars of Federal subsidy from the US Congress via the CPB too

They do. Last time I checked the CPB got an annual federal taxpayer subsidy of $445 million. For your average public broadcasting operation it represents 12-15% of their income. About 60-70% additionally is raised by individual and corporate contributions. The rest is a bit of state support and special events etc. I would like to see the subsidy disappear but that seems unlikely at present.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

British Republicanism has a pedigree going back to the 1640s...

...and we rejected it in 1660 so hard we actually retconned the Interregnum so that legally it didn't happen.

RobD said:

viewcode said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

British Republicanism has a pedigree going back to the 1640s...

...and we rejected it in 1660 so hard we actually retconned the Interregnum so that legally it didn't happen.

What interregnum?

The Interregnum that we don't talk about and indeed never happened and Charles II acceded to the throne the instant his father died on 30 January 1649 AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

RobD said:

viewcode said:

RobD said:

viewcode said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

British Republicanism has a pedigree going back to the 1640s...

...and we rejected it in 1660 so hard we actually retconned the Interregnum so that legally it didn't happen.

What interregnum?

The Interregnum that we don't talk about and indeed never happened and Charles II acceded to the throne the instant his father died on 30 January 1649 AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

Ah yes, after his rather unfortunate accident with the axe.

Slipped and fell. Could happen to anyone.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD

I would miss BBC Radio in all its forms. It is generally still excellent. I would miss BBC4 which is also excellent. BBC4 is for Left-leaning Guardianista types like you and me, not Red Wall White Van Man. We will just have to learn to live without or pay for the privilege.

There are plenty of excellent history docs for example on BBC4 which are not just for Guardianistas

You can't have high-brow cultural material paid for out of the public purse for the benefit of patrician types when Red Wall man has to pay a fortune for Sky Sports. As a Conservative you should know that.

Of course you can, patrician conservatives believe in preserving high-brow material (and Red Wall man would still get the World Cup finals subsidised)

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

rottenborough said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The destruction of one of the pillars of British life and envy of the world begins.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969

About time! Yes!

Crap.

And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.

Ten or Twenty years ago I would have wholly disagreed with you.

It is way past its best.

So long as we keep free to view terrestrial TV for the old and the less well off, I can't argue with you.

"Netflix is considerably cheaper than the licence fee."

It doesn't provided anything like the breadth of material. News, radio, music etc etc.

If you want to come home from work and just watch another box set then great.

I didn't ask to keep the license fee. BBC TV channels are gone in my scenario. Commercial terrestrial TV does the job for free.

You are unlikely to get BBC4 or Radio 3 intellectual quality on purely commercial subscription and advertising services, hence I personally still favour some public subsidy to ensure high brow programmes continue

PBS was called the Petroleum Broadcasting Service for d by Exxon Mobil. That's just 2 examples and there are many.

When I was a boy there was Light Programme, Third Programme, Home Service and BBC TV. No BBC 2, no Radio 1. No local radio.No web site. Looking at the beb today, it is unrecognisable from that base. to put it politely the BBC has suffered from Mission creep.

PBS though still receives millions of dollars of Federal subsidy from the US Congress via the CPB too

They do. Last time I checked the CPB got an annual federal taxpayer subsidy of $445 million. For your average public broadcasting operation it represents 12-15% of their income. About 60-70% additionally is raised by individual and corporate contributions. The rest is a bit of state support and special events etc. I would like to see the subsidy disappear but that seems unlikely at present.

I would keep the subsidy as now with the contributions and subscription still funding the majority

The Thueringen debacle for the Free Democrats and CDU (accepting an alliance with the AfD and then hastily backing out) has rocket-powered the (ex-communist) Left Party that they were trying to eject - from 31% to 40%. Nationally the CDU are slightly down after Merkel's successor resigned over the affair, but nothing dramatic. The main story remains the remarkable success of the Greens, who are close to being the largest party.and potentially in a position to govern with social democrat and Left partners.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/thueringen.htm

The German Greens are an interesitng case of a fringe party evolving into establishment. In my former job, trying to pin them down to actually doing anything about animal experiments in the states where they had the power to restrict them proved an elusive experience. But the grass roots are still very anti-establishment, so it'll be interesting to see if they get into government how it actually works out.

NickPalmer said:

The Thueringen debacle for the Free Democrats and CDU (accepting an alliance with the AfD and then hastily backing out) has rocket-powered the (ex-communist) Left Party that they were trying to eject - from 31% to 40%. Nationally the CDU are slightly down after Merkel's successor resigned over the affair, but nothing dramatic. The main story remains the remarkable success of the Greens, who are close to being the largest party.and potentially in a position to govern with social democrat and Left partners.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/thueringen.htm

The German Greens are an interesitng case of a fringe party evolving into establishment. In my former job, trying to pin them down to actually doing anything about animal experiments in the states where they had the power to restrict them proved an elusive experience. But the grass roots are still very anti-establishment, so it'll be interesting to see if they get into government how it actually works out.

CDU and Greens though remains the only coalition option over 50%.

If the SPD and Greens did a deal with the extremist communist Linke to gain power, inevitably the CDU post Merkel and FDP would start to do deals with the AfD in response

Beibheirli_C said:

rottenborough said:

Meanwhile in Cummings Land:

https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1228802882612363266

"It is still unclear to what extent FGM represents a serious risk to young girls..."

I wonder if he would have a different view if half his genitals had been hacked off by someone with no medical training and a blunt knife....

Tosser.

For fuck sake:

"..., raised in the UK, of certain minority group origins."

It helps if you finish the fucking sentence.

It is not obviously a risk given the distinct lack of convictions. Now, I have my own views about why this is, but lefties on here reassure us that nasty right wingers talk about FGM because they are racist.

Make the Beeb use a combination of advertising and subscriptions (inc international subscriptions) for revenue, and have a government pot of money (say around 10% of the current BBC budget) available to all producers to make the cultural, religious, arts and ad-free kids programming that the market wouldn’t produce - rather like PBS in the USA.

Also save on the huge burden put on the magistrates’ courts, and a lot of often poor people currently dragged into the TV Licensing prosecution net.

DavidL said:

Even further off topic I think someone commented a couple of days ago how impressive and detailed the modeling is for Singapore in respect of the Covid-19 outbreak: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/coronavirus-covid19-singapore-cases-feb-15-12437852

It also highlights how few SE Asian countries are going to capable of anything similar.

That’s some effort the Singaporean authorities have gone to, documenting each case in detail and tracing over a thousand contacts with the infected.

In such a densely populated area, it’s really an achievement that they’ve contained the spread as much as they have.

Contrast with Japan, where it is now starting to look like a very serious problem indeed.

Nigelb said:

When thinking about how other countries deal with the virus, consider this claim:

https://twitter.com/paulmozur/status/1228751784111271936

OPEC reckons that Chinese demand for oil is down 25-30% since the start of the year. It’s clear from metrics like that, that an awful lot of the Chinese economy is shut down.

It’s inevitable that there will soon be disruption to global supply chains, and the knock-on effects could well tip the world into recession by the middle of the year. A lot of Western factories are going to find themselves short of supplies in the next few months.

Nigelb said:

When thinking about how other countries deal with the virus, consider this claim:

https://twitter.com/paulmozur/status/1228751784111271936

It's something of a relief to be honest.

Although, I wouldn't like to be one of their citizens; the welding apartments shut stuff is very sinister.

How many deaths there aren't actually Coronavirus but from severe dehydration or malnutrition whilst suspected of having Coronavirus caused by indefinite imprisonment?

Alistair said:

kle4 said:

I know why people say this, and many do, but as a unionist I find it worrying that how many cannot put aside party political issues for the sake of a wider issue like support for the union. Worrying too in that they do have reason for that stance, as they were and would likely continue to be punished if they did. I mean, most people accept that there are issues, as British people or Europeans or whatever, that mean its ok to work with people of other groups in support of the thing they do agree on.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1228590234402775040

Campaigning with the Tories was a massive, massive, massive mistake for Labour in Scotland.

Just gigantic. .

What would have been the alternative?